Evidence map›Paper›PMID 7888896›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1995

Transferring the costs of expensive treatments from secondary to primary care.

B J Crump, R Panton, M F Drummond, M Marchment, R A Hawkes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. General practice fundholding: progress to date.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1998
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

B J CrumpSouth Birmingham Health Authority.
R Panton
M F Drummond
M Marchment
R A Hawkes

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

General practitioners, especially fundholders, are becoming increasingly concerned about being asked to prescribe treatments for their patients that are outside their therapeutic experience. They are concerned about the clinical responsibility for such prescribing and the effects on their budgets. In some specialties transferring the costs of expensive treatments from secondary to primary care (cost shifting) has become partly institutionalised because of the separate sources of funding for drugs prescribed in the two sectors. With increased efforts to control the rising costs of the drugs budget and the emergence of new expensive treatments, cost shifting will be a challenge to clinicians and purchasers as they strive for rational, cost effective prescribing. A review of the funding mechanisms for drugs prescribing and of the relation between the licensing process and the decision to support the use of a treatment in primary or secondary care is needed.

Indexed as

Cost AllocationBudgetsCapital FinancingCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision MakingDrug CostsDrug PrescriptionsFamily PracticeGroup PurchasingHospital CostsHumansState MedicineUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID7888896
PMCPMC2548882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.