Dataset Information

The impact of removing financial incentives and/or audit and feedback on chlamydia testing in general practice: A cluster randomised controlled trial (ACCEPt-able).

ABSTRACT:

Background

Financial incentives and audit/feedback are widely used in primary care to influence clinician behaviour and increase quality of care. While observational data suggest a decline in quality when these interventions are stopped, their removal has not been evaluated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT), to our knowledge. This trial aimed to determine whether chlamydia testing in general practice is sustained when financial incentives and/or audit/feedback are removed.

Methods and findings

We undertook a 2 × 2 factorial cluster RCT in 60 general practices in 4 Australian states targeting 49,525 patients aged 16-29 years for annual chlamydia testing. Clinics were recruited between July 2014 and September 2015 and were followed for up to 2 years or until 31 December 2016. Clinics were eligible if they were in the intervention group of a previous cluster RCT where general practitioners (GPs) received financial incentives (AU$5-AU$8) for each chlamydia test and quarterly audit/feedback reports of their chlamydia testing rates. Clinics were randomised into 1 of 4 groups: incentives removed but audit/feedback retained (group A), audit/feedback removed but incentives retained (group B), both removed (group C), or both retained (group D). The primary outcome was the annual chlamydia testing rate among 16- to 29-year-old patients, where the numerator was the number who had at least 1 chlamydia test within 12 months and the denominator was the number who had at least 1 consultation during the same 12 months. We undertook a factorial analysis in which we investigated the effects of removal versus retention of incentives (groups A + C versus groups B + D) and the effects of removal versus retention of audit/feedback (group B + C versus groups A + D) separately. Of 60 clinics, 59 were randomised and 55 (91.7%) provided data (group A: 15 clinics, 11,196 patients; group B: 14, 11,944; group C: 13, 11,566; group D: 13, 14,819). Annual testing decreased from 20.2% to 11.7% (difference -8.8%; 95% CI -10.5% to -7.0%) in clinics with incentives removed and decreased from 20.6% to 14.3% (difference -7.1%; 95% CI -9.6% to -4.7%) where incentives were retained. The adjusted absolute difference in treatment effect was -0.9% (95% CI -3.5% to 1.7%; p = 0.2267). Annual testing decreased from 21.0% to 11.6% (difference -9.5%; 95% CI -11.7% to -7.4%) in clinics where audit/feedback was removed and decreased from 19.9% to 14.5% (difference -6.4%; 95% CI -8.6% to -4.2%) where audit/feedback was retained. The adjusted absolute difference in treatment effect was -2.6% (95% CI -5.4% to -0.1%; p = 0.0336). Study limitations included an unexpected reduction in testing across all groups impacting statistical power, loss of 4 clinics after randomisation, and inclusion of rural clinics only.

Conclusions

Audit/feedback is more effective than financial incentives of AU$5-AU$8 per chlamydia test at sustaining GP chlamydia testing practices over time in Australian general practice.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614000595617.

SUBMITTER: Hocking JS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8726492 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Financial incentives and audit plus feedback on performance are two strategies commonly used by governments to motivate general practitioners (GP) to undertake specific healthcare activities. However, in recent years, governments have reduced or removed incentive payments without evidence of the potential impact on GP behaviour and patient outcomes. This trial (known as ACCEPt-able) aims to determine whether preventive care activities in general practice are sustained when financial incentives and/or external audit plus feedback on preventive care activities are removed. The activity investigated is annual chlamydia testing for 16- to 29-year-old adults, a key preventive health strategy within this age group.ACCEPt-able builds on a large cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) that evaluated a 3-year chlamydia testing intervention in general practice. GPs were provided with a support package to facilitate annual chlamydia testing of all sexually active 16- to 29-year-old patients. This package included financial incentive payments to the GP for each chlamydia test conducted and external audit plus feedback on each GP's chlamydia testing rates. ACCEPt-able is a factorial cluster RCT in which general practices are randomised to one of four groups: (i) removal of audit plus feedback-continue to receive financial incentive payments for each chlamydia test; (ii) removal of financial incentive payments-continue to receive audit plus feedback; (iii) removal of financial incentive payments and audit plus feedback; and (iv) continue financial incentive payments and audit plus feedback. The primary outcome is chlamydia testing rate measured as the proportion of sexually active 16- to 29-year-olds who have a GP consultation within a 12-month period and at least one chlamydia test.This will be the first RCT to examine the impact of removal of financial incentive payments and audit plus feedback on the chlamydia testing behaviour of GPs. This trial is particularly timely and will increase our understanding about the impact of financial incentives and audit plus feedback on GP behaviour when governments are looking for opportunities to control healthcare budgets and maximise clinical outcomes for money spent. The results of this trial will have implications for supporting preventive health measures beyond the content area of chlamydia.The trial has been registered on the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12614000595617 ).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Dentists prescribe approximately 10% of antibiotics dispensed in UK community pharmacies. Despite clear clinical guidance, dentists often prescribe antibiotics inappropriately. This cluster-randomised controlled trial used routinely collected National Health Service (NHS) dental prescribing and treatment claim data to compare the impact of individualised audit and feedback (A&F) interventions on dentists' antibiotic prescribing rates. METHODS AND FINDINGS:All 795 antibiotic prescribing NHS general dental practices in Scotland were included. Practices were randomised to the control (practices = 163; dentists = 567) or A&F intervention group (practices = 632; dentists = 1,999). A&F intervention practices were allocated to one of two A&F groups: (1) individualised graphical A&F comprising a line graph plotting an individual dentist's monthly antibiotic prescribing rate (practices = 316; dentists = 1,001); or (2) individualised graphical A&F plus a written behaviour change message synthesising and reiterating national guidance recommendations for dental antibiotic prescribing (practices = 316; dentists = 998). Intervention practices were also simultaneously randomised to receive A&F: (i) with or without a health board comparator comprising the addition of a line to the graphical A&F plotting the monthly antibiotic prescribing rate of all dentists in the health board; and (ii) delivered at 0 and 6 mo or at 0, 6, and 9 mo, giving a total of eight intervention groups. The primary outcome, measured by the trial statistician who was blinded to allocation, was the total number of antibiotic items dispensed per 100 NHS treatment claims over the 12 mo post-delivery of the baseline A&F. Primary outcome data was available for 152 control practices (dentists = 438) and 609 intervention practices (dentists = 1,550). At baseline, the number of antibiotic items prescribed per 100 NHS treatment claims was 8.3 in the control group and 8.5 in the intervention group. At follow-up, antibiotic prescribing had decreased by 0.4 antibiotic items per 100 NHS treatment claims in control practices and by 1.0 in intervention practices. This represents a significant reduction (-5.7%; 95% CI -10.2% to -1.1%; p = 0.01) in dentists' prescribing rate in the intervention group relative to the control group. Intervention subgroup analyses found a 6.1% reduction in the antibiotic prescribing rate of dentists who had received the written behaviour change message relative to dentists who had not (95% CI -10.4% to -1.9%; p = 0.01). There was no significant between-group difference in the prescribing rate of dentists who received a health board comparator relative to those who did not (-4.3%; 95% CI -8.6% to 0.1%; p = 0.06), nor between dentists who received A&F at 0 and 6 mo relative to those who received A&F at 0, 6, and 9 mo (0.02%; 95% CI -4.2% to 4.2%; p = 0.99). The key limitations relate to the use of routinely collected datasets which did not allow evaluation of any effects on inappropriate prescribing. CONCLUSIONS:A&F derived from routinely collected datasets led to a significant reduction in the antibiotic prescribing rate of dentists. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49204710.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Antibiotic prescribing in dentistry accounts for 9% of total antibiotic prescriptions in Scottish primary care. The Scottish Dental Clinical Effectiveness Programme (SDCEP) published guidance in April 2008 (2nd edition, August 2011) for Drug Prescribing in Dentistry, which aims to assist dentists to make evidence-based antibiotic prescribing decisions. However, wide variation in prescribing persists and the overall use of antibiotics is increasing. METHODS:RAPiD is a 12-month partial factorial cluster randomised trial conducted in NHS General Dental Practices across Scotland. Its aim is to compare the effectiveness of individualised audit and feedback (A&F) strategies for the translation into practice of SDCEP recommendations on antibiotic prescribing. The trial uses routinely collected electronic healthcare data in five aspects of its design in order to: identify the study population; apply eligibility criteria; carry out stratified randomisation; generate the trial intervention; analyse trial outcomes. Eligibility was determined on contract status and a minimum level of recent NHS treatment provision. All eligible dental practices in Scotland were simultaneously randomised at baseline either to current audit practice or to an intervention group. Randomisation was stratified by single-handed/multi-handed practices. General dental practitioners (GDPs) working at intervention practices will receive individualised graphical representations of their antibiotic prescribing rate from the previous 14 months at baseline and an update at six months. GDPs could not be blinded to their practice allocation. Intervention practices were further randomised using a factorial design to receive feedback with or without: a health board comparator; a supplementary text-based intervention; additional feedback at nine months. The primary outcome is the total antibiotic prescribing rate per 100 courses of treatment over the year following delivery of the baseline intervention. A concurrent qualitative process evaluation will apply theory-based approaches using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to explore the acceptability of the interventions and the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify barriers and enablers to evidence-based antibiotic prescribing behaviour by GDPs. DISCUSSION:RAPiD will provide a robust evaluation of A&F in dentistry in Scotland. It also demonstrates that linked administrative datasets have the potential to be used efficiently and effectively across all stages of an randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49204710.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate whether greater experience and success with performance incentives among physician practices are related to increased participation in Medicare's voluntary value-based payment reforms.Data sources/study settingPublicly available data from Medicare's Physician Compare (n = 1,278; January 2012 to November 2013) and nationally representative physician practice data from the National Survey of Physician Organizations 3 (NSPO3; n = 907,538; 2013).Study designWe used regression analysis to examine practice-level relationships between prior exposure to performance incentives and participation in key Medicare value-based payment reforms: accountable care organization (ACO) programs, the Physician Quality Reporting System ("Physician Compare"), and the Meaningful Use of Health Information Technology program ("Meaningful Use"). Prior experience and success with financial incentives were measured as (1) the percentage of practices' revenue from financial incentives for quality or efficiency; and (2) practices' exposure to public reporting of quality measures.Data collection/extraction methodsWe linked physician participation data from Medicare's Physician Compare to the NSPO3 survey.Principal findingsThere was wide variation in practices' exposure to performance incentives, with 64 percent exposed to financial incentives, 45 percent exposed to public reporting, and 2.2 percent of practice revenue coming from financial incentives. For each percentage-point increase in financial incentives, there was a 0.9 percentage-point increase in the probability of participating in ACOs (standard error [SE], 0.1, p < .001) and a 0.8 percentage-point increase in the probability of participating in Meaningful Use (SE, 0.1, p < .001), controlling for practice characteristics. Financial incentives were not associated with participation in Physician Compare. Among ACO participants, a 1 percentage-point increase in incentives was associated with a 0.7 percentage-point increase in the probability of being "very well" prepared to utilize cost and quality data (SE, 0.1, p < .001).ConclusionsPhysicians organizations' prior experience and success with performance incentives were related to participation in Medicare ACO arrangements and participation in the meaningful use criteria but not to participation in Physician Compare. We conclude that Medicare must complement financial incentives with additional efforts to address the needs of practices with less experience with such incentives to promote value-based payment on a broader scale.

Project description:Importance:Although breastfeeding has a positive effect on an infant's health and development, the prevalence is low in many communities. The effect of financial incentives to improve breastfeeding prevalence is unknown. Objective:To assess the effect of an area-level financial incentive for breastfeeding on breastfeeding prevalence at 6 to 8 weeks post partum. Design, Setting, and Participants:The Nourishing Start for Health (NOSH) trial, a cluster randomized trial with 6 to 8 weeks follow-up, was conducted between April 1, 2015, and March 31, 2016, in 92 electoral ward areas in England with baseline breastfeeding prevalence at 6 to 8 weeks post partum less than 40%. A total of 10?010 mother-infant dyads resident in the 92 study electoral ward areas where the infant's estimated or actual birth date fell between February 18, 2015, and February 17, 2016, were included. Areas were randomized to the incentive plus usual care (n?=?46) (5398 mother-infant dyads) or to usual care alone (n?=?46) (4612 mother-infant dyads). Interventions:Usual care was delivered by clinicians (mainly midwives, health visitors) in a variety of maternity, neonatal, and infant feeding services, all of which were implementing the UNICEF UK Baby Friendly Initiative standards. Shopping vouchers worth £40 (US$50) were offered to mothers 5 times based on infant age (2 days, 10 days, 6-8 weeks, 3 months, 6 months), conditional on the infant receiving any breast milk. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was electoral ward area-level 6- to 8-week breastfeeding period prevalence, as assessed by clinicians at the routine 6- to 8-week postnatal check visit. Secondary outcomes were area-level period prevalence for breastfeeding initiation and for exclusive breastfeeding at 6 to 8 weeks. Results:In the intervention (5398 mother-infant dyads) and control (4612 mother-infant dyads) group, the median (interquartile range) percentage of women aged 16 to 44 years was 36.2% (3.0%) and 37.4% (3.6%) years, respectively. After adjusting for baseline breastfeeding prevalence and local government area and weighting to reflect unequal cluster-level breastfeeding prevalence variances, a difference in mean 6- to 8-week breastfeeding prevalence of 5.7 percentage points (37.9% vs 31.7%; 95% CI for adjusted difference, 2.7% to 8.6%; P?<?.001) in favor of the intervention vs usual care was observed. No significant differences were observed for the mean prevalence of breastfeeding initiation (61.9% vs 57.5%; adjusted mean difference, 2.9 percentage points; 95%, CI, -0.4 to 6.2; P?=?.08) or the mean prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding at 6 to 8 weeks (27.0% vs 24.1%; adjusted mean difference, 2.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.2 to 4.8; P?=?.07). Conclusions and Relevance:Financial incentives may improve breastfeeding rates in areas with low baseline prevalence. Offering a financial incentive to women in areas of England with breastfeeding rates below 40% compared with usual care resulted in a modest but statistically significant increase in breastfeeding prevalence at 6 to 8 weeks. This was measured using routinely collected data. Trial Registration:International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Registry: ISRCTN44898617.

Project description:IntroductionPharmacists, as experts in medicines, are increasingly employed in general practices and undertake a range of responsibilities. Audit and feedback (A&F) interventions are effective in achieving behaviour change, including prescribing. The extent of pharmacist involvement in A&F interventions to influence prescribing is unknown. This review aimed to assess the effectiveness of A&F interventions involving pharmacists on prescribing in general practice compared with no A&F/usual care and to describe features of A&F interventions and pharmacist characteristics.MethodsElectronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, (Social) Science Citation Indexes, ISI Web of Science) were searched (2012, 2019, 2020). Cochrane systematic review methods were applied to trial identification, selection, and risk of bias. Results were summarized descriptively and heterogeneity was assessed. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted where studies were sufficiently homogenous in design and outcome.ResultsEleven cluster-randomized studies from 9 countries were included. Risk of bias across most domains was low. Interventions focussed on older patients, specific clinical area(s), or specific medications. Meta-analysis of 6 studies showed improved prescribing outcomes (pooled risk ratio: 0.78, 95% confidence interval: 0.64-0.94). Interventions including both verbal and written feedback or computerized decision support for prescribers were more effective. Pharmacists who received study-specific training, provided ongoing support to prescribers or reviewed prescribing for individual patients, contributed to more effective interventions.ConclusionsA&F interventions involving pharmacists can lead to small improvements in evidence-based prescribing in general practice settings. Future implementation of A&F within general practice should compare different ways of involving pharmacists to determine how to optimize effectiveness.PRISMA-compliant abstract included in Supplementary Material 1.