ArticlePLOS mental health2025
Primary care health screening in patients with severe mental illness: What influence do financial incentives have?
Article in PLOS mental health, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Quality-of-Care Framework (QOF) aims to improve patient care for at risk groups through financial incentivisation. This study assesses the effect of changes in incentivisation of four health indicators for people with severe mental illness (SMI) on their recording versus controls. 9,250 patients with SMI aged >18 from South London and 12,729 controls were included using linked primary and mental healthcare records between 2006-2020. Mixed effect logistic regression controlling for age, gender, and neighbourhood deprivation estimated effects of incentivisation on health indicators in SMI and controls, and compared periods with/without incentivisation within the SMI sample and between SMI diagnostic groups. SMI patients overall were more likely than controls to be checked for all health indicators, and incentivisation was associated with increases in all screening measures in SMI compared to controls. In SMI patients, compared to pre-incentivisation, the likelihood of being checked increased overall (ranging from OR = 1.48 p < .001 for blood pressure to OR = 3.70 p < .001 for alcohol consumption); for alcohol consumption, however, this likelihood dropped significantly to lower odds when de-incentivised compared to the pre-incentivisation period (OR = 0.83 p < .001). Impacts were similar across SMI categories. While primary care financial incentivisation is associated with improved health screening in adults with SMI, its duration can impact quality of care, raising concerns over health inequalities in people with SMI and on the effectiveness of incentivised performance in healthcare.
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.