↓ Skip to main content

Effect of pay-for-performance on cervical cancer screening participation in France

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Health Economics and Management, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
Effect of pay-for-performance on cervical cancer screening participation in France
Published in
International Journal of Health Economics and Management, December 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10754-016-9207-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Panayotis Constantinou, Jonathan Sicsic, Carine Franc

Abstract

Pay-for-performance (P4P) has been increasingly used across different healthcare settings to incentivize the provision of targeted services. In this study, we investigated the effect of a nationwide P4P scheme for general practitioners implemented in 2012 in France, on cervical cancer screening practices. Using data from a nationally representative permanent sample of health insurance beneficiaries, we analyzed smear test use of eligible women for the years 2006-2014. Our longitudinal sample was an unbalanced panel comprising 180,167 women eligible from 1 to 9 years each. We took into account that during our study period some women were exposed to another incentive for screening participation: the implementation in 2010 of organized screening (OS) in a limited number of areas. To evaluate the effect of P4P, we defined three different measures of smear utilization. For each measure, we specified binary panel-data models to estimate annual probabilities and to compare each estimate to the 2011 baseline level. To explore the combined effect of P4P and OS in areas exposed to both incentives, we computed interaction terms between year dummies and area of residence. We found that P4P had a modest positive effect on recommended screening participation. This effect is likely to be transient as annual smear use, both for the whole sample and among women overdue for screening, increased only in 2013 and decreased again in 2014. The combined effect of P4P and OS on screening participation was not cumulative during the first years of coexistence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 23%
Researcher 9 19%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 11 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 11 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 13 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 December 2016.
All research outputs
#16,172,769
of 23,857,313 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Health Economics and Management
#88
of 104 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#262,404
of 426,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Health Economics and Management
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,857,313 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 104 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 426,333 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them