ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2026
Financial incentives and information provision for post-pandemic primary care quality recovery: a longitudinal study in Catalonia.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic disrupted primary care services worldwide, reducing quality of care. Understanding the impact of quality-improvement strategies can guide system resilience.
aimTo assess whether information provision and financial incentives to primary care professionals supported quality of care recovering to pre-pandemic levels after pandemic-related declines. DESIGN AND
settingThis study involved descriptive analysis at the practice and aggregated indicator levels in Catalonia, Spain.
methodData on 37 quality-of-care indicators from 287 primary care practices (5 250 531 adults) were analysed monthly from 2019 until 2024. Financial incentives were suspended in 2020; 13 indicators were reintegrated into pay-for-performance schemes in 2021 (early-incentivised indicators), while 24 remained out of the schemes until 2023 (late-incentivised indicators). Outcomes were annual changes in indicator results and variability, and time to recover pre-pandemic care-quality levels. A multivariate Cox model estimated the effect of incentives;
resultsIn 2021, 11 (85%) of 13 of early-incentivised indicators started showing signs of recovery versus five (21%) of 24 late-incentivised indicators. By December 2024, recovery of pre-pandemic results occurred in 85% and 50% of early- and late-incentivised indicators, respectively, despite larger pandemic drops in early-incentivised indicators. Early incentivisation doubled the likelihood of recovery before 2023 (2.06 times), with effects varying by indicator type. However, many practices recovered late-incentivised indicators when they were informed only and before financial incentives resumed. Clustering revealed four practice profiles: fast recoverers, fast for incentivised, fast for informed, and slow recoverers. Smaller practices recovered more quickly and rural practices had milder declines.
conclusionFinancial incentives accelerated quality-of-care recovery after a system shock, particularly when tailored to indicator types and practice contexts, and complemented by timely information provision. Policymakers could use these findings to guide recovery strategies and strengthen resilience in primary care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.