↓ Skip to main content

The effect of financial incentives on the quality of health care provided by primary care physicians

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
85 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Readers on

mendeley
767 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The effect of financial incentives on the quality of health care provided by primary care physicians
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008451.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anthony Scott, Peter Sivey, Driss Ait Ouakrim, Lisa Willenberg, Lucio Naccarella, John Furler, Doris Young

Abstract

The use of blended payment schemes in primary care, including the use of financial incentives to directly reward 'performance' and 'quality' is increasing in a number of countries. There are many examples in the US, and the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QoF) for general practitioners (GPs) in the UK is an example of a major system-wide reform. Despite the popularity of these schemes, there is currently little rigorous evidence of their success in improving the quality of primary health care, or of whether such an approach is cost-effective relative to other ways to improve the quality of care.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 85 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 767 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 11 1%
United States 7 <1%
Australia 5 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Ireland 2 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Other 6 <1%
Unknown 727 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 162 21%
Student > Master 153 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 105 14%
Other 50 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 50 7%
Other 179 23%
Unknown 68 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 330 43%
Social Sciences 92 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 57 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 47 6%
Psychology 45 6%
Other 98 13%
Unknown 98 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 130. 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 01 January 2018.
All research outputs
#135,035
of 14,550,524 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#275
of 11,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#574
of 94,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,550,524 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,015 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
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 94,132 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.