↓ Skip to main content

Pay for performance and contractual choice: the case of general practitioners in England

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Pay for performance and contractual choice: the case of general practitioners in England
Published in
Health Economics Review, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13561-017-0142-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eleonora Fichera, Mario Pezzino

Abstract

The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) is a Pay-for-Performance scheme introduced in England in 2004 to reward primary care providers. This incentive scheme provides financial incentives that reward the overall performance of a practice, not individual effort. Consequently, an important question is how the QOF may affect contractual choices, quality provision and doctor mobility in the primary healthcare labour market. The paper provides a simple theoretical model that shows that the introduction and further strengthening of the scheme may have induced practices to compete for the best doctors and modified their choices in terms of contractual agreements with practitioners. We test the implications of this model using a linkage between Doctors Census data and practices' characteristics from 2003 to 2007. We use linear multilevel models with random intercept and we account for sample selection. We find that after the introduction of the QOF efficient doctors are more likely to become partners and mobility among doctors has increased. The strengthening of the scheme in 2005 is associated with an increase in the quality of primary care and a reduction in access to the market for new doctors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 20%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 14%
Social Sciences 6 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 6%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 14 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 17 February 2022.
All research outputs
#6,149,304
of 23,146,350 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#97
of 437 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,062
of 420,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,146,350 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 437 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 420,989 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.