↓ Skip to main content

Pharmaceutical policies: effects of financial incentives for prescribers

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
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
Pharmaceutical policies: effects of financial incentives for prescribers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006731
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sturm, Heidrun, Austvoll-Dahlgren, Astrid, Aaserud, Morten, Oxman, Andrew D, Ramsay, Craig R, Vernby, Åsa, Kösters, Jan Peter, Sturm, H, Austvoll-Dahlgren, A, Aaserud, M, Oxman, A D, Ramsay, C, Vernby, A, Kösters, J P

Abstract

Pharmaceuticals, while central to medical therapy, pose a significant burden to health care budgets. Therefore regulations to control prescribing costs and improve quality of care are implemented increasingly. These include the use of financial incentives for prescribers, namely increased financial accountability using budgets and performance based payments. To determine the effects on drug use, healthcare utilisation, health outcomes and costs (expenditures) of policies, that intend to affect prescribers by means of financial incentives. We searched the following databases and web sites: Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Register (August 2003), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (October 2003), MEDLINE (October 2005), EMBASE (October 2005), and other databases. Policies were defined as laws, rules, financial and administrative orders made by governments, non-government organisations or private insurers. One of the following outcomes had to be reported: drug use, healthcare utilisation, health outcomes, and costs. The study had to be a randomised or non-randomised controlled trial, interrupted time series analysis, repeated measures study or controlled before-after study evaluating financial incentives for prescribers introduced for a jurisdiction or healthcare system. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study limitations. Thirteen evaluations of budgetary policies and none of performance based payments met our inclusion criteria. Ten studies evaluated general practice fundholding in the UK, one the Irish Indicative Drug Target Savings Scheme (IDTSS) and two evaluated German drug budgets for physicians in private practice. The interrupted time series analyses had some limitations. All the controlled before-after studies (all from the UK) had serious limitations. Drug expenditure (per item and per patient) and prescribed drug volume decreased with budgets in all three countries. Evidence indicated increased use of generic drugs in the UK and Ireland, but was inconclusive on the use of new and expensive drugs. We found no clear evidence of increased health care utilisation and no studies reporting effects on health. Administration costs were not reported. No studies on the effects of performance-based payments or other policies met our inclusion criteria. Based on the evidence in this review from three Western European countries, drug budgets for physicians in private practice can limit drug expenditure by limiting the volume of prescribed drugs, increasing the use of generic drugs or both. Since the majority of studies included were found to have serious limitations, these results should be interpreted with care.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Germany 2 2%
Portugal 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Unknown 104 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 24%
Researcher 18 16%
Other 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 22 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 33%
Social Sciences 12 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 29 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 09 July 2015.
All research outputs
#7,809,112
of 23,700,294 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,345
of 12,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,078
of 68,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#56
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,700,294 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,753 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.4. 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 68,795 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.