ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2026
Deprivation scores and NHS practice payment trends in England 2018-2019 to 2023-2024:a multivariable analysis.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFunding shortfalls persist for practices in the most deprived areas, despite capitation formula adjustments.
aimTo evaluate whether deprivation scores predicted practice payment trends between 2019 and 2024. DESIGN AND
settingMultivariable analysis was undertaken of English general practices (2018-2019 to 2023-2024), excluding practices with <750 patients or average payments >£500 per patient per year, using published data.
methodA quadratic mixed-effects model was fitted, using cluster-robust standard errors. The outcome was log-transformed average NHS practice payments per patient (net of deductions/reimbursements). The fixed effects were time (categorical), the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) score (higher score indicates greater deprivation), and seven covariates (geographical, population, or organisational). The random effect was practices' random intercepts.
resultsAmong 5726 included practices, median payments increased in nominal terms (8.6%) but decreased in real terms (-12.6% consumer price index [CPI] and -9.0% CPI for health). The IMD-payment trend relationship was curvilinear, peaking at IMD 49.8 (1.4% above mean deprivation, IMD 23.2), declining to 0.6% higher at IMD 70.0. More positive payment trends were associated with non-London regions, rurality, greater long-term conditions (LTCs) prevalence, and higher baseline payments; less positive trends were associated with more patients aged <16 years, larger lists, and personal medical services contracts. In interaction models, rurality increased whereas higher LTCs decreased IMD's impact.
conclusionDeprivation had a positive but diminishing association with payment trends as deprivation increased, moderated by geography and morbidity. Payment uplifts must match inflation. Funding formulas must better compensate for deprivation and morbidity, address the attenuated positive effect of deprivation in practices with more patients with LTCs, and minimise geographical inequalities.
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.