ReviewThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners1998
General practice fundholding: progress to date.
Review in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmaceutical policies: effects of financial incentives for prescribers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- [Organisational reforms in the relationships between general doctors and specialists: impact on referrals].Atencion primaria · 2010Article
- The abolition of the GP fundholding scheme: a lesson in evidence-based policy making.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2002Article
- A healthy disposition? The use and limitations of the characteristics approach to general practice research.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2001Article
- Primary care purchasing. Are integrated primary care provider/purchasers the way forward?PharmacoEconomics · 1999Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe cornerstone of the National Health Service (NHS) reforms was the establishment of an internal market, which separated purchasing and providing roles. As purchasers of care, general practice fundholders were seen as a pivotal part of the 'new patient-led NHS', which was intended to lead to improved cost-containment and cost-effectiveness, quality of care, and patient choice and empowerment.
aimTo review published evidence of the extent to which these objectives may have been achieved over the past six years.
methodKeyword search of on-line databases (MEDLINE and Econ-lit) from 1990 to 1996, plus manual search of references within those articles identified.
resultsIn the absence of any formal evaluation of fundholding, it is difficult to assess the overall success of this reform. However, in terms of cost-containment and cost-effectiveness, there is mixed evidence. In some areas, such as prescribing, the evidence suggests cost-savings, although the evidence is less clear on reductions or changes in referrals. There is also evidence that suggests that improvements in prescribing may have been achieved at substantial additional administration and transaction costs. With respect to quality of care, the evidence suggests that, although quality in the procedural aspects of health provision has improved, there is little evidence about how health outcomes may have been affected. In terms of patient choice and empowerment, the evidence suggests that, whilst general practitioner choice of secondary providers has improved, little progress has been made with regard to increased consumer choice.
conclusionEvidence concerning the success or otherwise of general practice fundholding over the past six years is incomplete and mixed. The major deficiency concerns any effect on health outcomes that may be the result of fundholding. Until such research is conducted, the jury will have to remain out on whether fundholding has secured improved efficiency in the delivery of health care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
9692288PMC1410181W1651282552What 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.