↓ Skip to main content

How Financial and Reputational Incentives Can Be Used to Improve Medical Care

Overview of attention for article published in Health Services Research, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
How Financial and Reputational Incentives Can Be Used to Improve Medical Care
Published in
Health Services Research, November 2015
DOI 10.1111/1475-6773.12419
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin Roland, R. Adams Dudley

Abstract

Narrative review of the impact of pay-for-performance (P4P) and public reporting (PR) on health care outcomes, including spillover effects and impact on disparities. The impact of P4P and PR is dependent on the underlying payment system (fee-for-service, salary, capitation) into which these schemes are introduced. Both have the potential to improve care, but they can also have substantial unintended consequences. Evidence from the behavioral economics literature suggests that individual physicians will vary in how they respond to incentives. We also discuss issues to be considered when including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) or patient-reported experience measures into P4P and PR schemes. We provide guidance to payers and policy makers on the design of P4P and PR programs so as to maximize their benefits and minimize their unintended consequences. These include involving clinicians in the design of the program, taking into account the payment system into which new incentives are introduced, designing the structure of reward programs to maximize the likelihood of intended outcomes and minimize the likelihood of unintended consequences, designing schemes that minimize the risk of increasing disparities, providing stability of incentives over some years, and including outcomes that are relevant to patients' priorities. In addition, because of the limitations of PR and P4P as effective interventions in their own right, it is important that they are combined with other policies and interventions intended to improve quality to maximize their likely impact.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Spain 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 95 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 21%
Student > Master 19 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 12%
Unspecified 9 9%
Other 23 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 14%
Social Sciences 14 14%
Unspecified 13 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 11 11%
Other 26 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 27 January 2016.
All research outputs
#3,307,347
of 12,356,791 outputs
Outputs from Health Services Research
#828
of 1,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,570
of 326,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Services Research
#20
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,356,791 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,503 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 326,335 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.