| Title |
Impact assessment of a pay-for-performance program on breast cancer screening in France using micro data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10198-016-0813-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jonathan Sicsic, Carine Franc |
| Abstract |
A voluntary-based pay-for-performance (P4P) program (the CAPI) aimed at general practitioners (GPs) was implemented in France in 2009. The program targeted prevention practices, including breast cancer screening, by offering a maximal amount of €245 for achieving a target screening rate among eligible women enrolled with the GP. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of the French P4P program (CAPI) on the early detection of breast cancer among women between 50 and 74 years old. Based on an administrative database of 50,752 women aged 50-74 years followed between 2007 and 2011, we estimated a difference-in-difference model of breast cancer screening uptake as a function of visit to a CAPI signatory referral GP, while controlling for both supply-side and demand-side determinants (e.g., sociodemographics, health and healthcare use). Breast cancer screening rates have not changed significantly since the P4P program implementation. Overall, visiting a CAPI signatory referral GP at least once in the pre-CAPI period increased the probability of undergoing breast cancer screening by 1.38 % [95 % CI (0.41-2.35 %)], but the effect was not significantly different following the implementation of the contract. The French P4P program had a nonsignificant impact on breast cancer screening uptake. This result may reflect the fact that the low-powered incentives implemented in France through the CAPI might not provide sufficient leverage to generate better practices, thus inviting regulators to seek additional tools beyond P4P in the field of prevention and screening. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 65 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 14% |
| Researcher | 8 | 12% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 23 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 17% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Engineering | 4 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 30 | 46% |
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 June 2016.
All research outputs
#20,345,004
of 25,870,940 outputs
Outputs from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#1,025
of 1,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#271,486
of 370,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#13
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,870,940 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,316 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 370,915 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.