Dataset Information

Performance bonuses and the quality of primary health care delivered by family health teams in Brazil: A difference-in-differences analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Pay-for-performance (P4P) programmes to incentivise health providers to improve quality of care have been widely implemented globally. Despite intuitive appeal, evidence on the effectiveness of P4P is mixed, potentially due to differences in how schemes are designed. We exploited municipality variation in the design features of Brazil's National Programme for Improving Primary Care Access and Quality (PMAQ) to examine whether performance bonuses given to family health team workers were associated with changes in the quality of care and whether the size of bonus mattered.

Methods and findings

For this quasi-experimental study, we used a difference-in-differences approach combined with matching. We compared changes over time in the quality of care delivered by family health teams between (bonus) municipalities that chose to use some or all of the PMAQ money to provide performance-related bonuses to team workers with (nonbonus) municipalities that invested the funds using traditional input-based budgets. The primary outcome was the PMAQ score, a quality of care index on a scale of 0 to 100, based on several hundred indicators (ranging from 598 to 660) of health care delivery. We did one-to-one matching of bonus municipalities to nonbonus municipalities based on baseline demographic and economic characteristics. On the matched sample, we used ordinary least squares regression to estimate the association of any bonus and size of bonus with the prepost change over time (between November 2011 and October 2015) in the PMAQ score. We performed subgroup analyses with respect to the local area income of the family health team. The matched analytical sample comprised 2,346 municipalities (1,173 nonbonus municipalities; 1,173 bonus municipalities), containing 10,275 family health teams that participated in PMAQ from the outset. Bonus municipalities were associated with a 4.6 (95% CI: 2.7 to 6.4; p < 0.001) percentage point increase in the PMAQ score compared with nonbonus municipalities. The association with quality of care increased with the size of bonus: the largest bonus group saw an improvement of 8.2 percentage points (95% CI: 6.2 to 10.2; p < 0.001) compared with the control. The subgroup analysis showed that the observed improvement in performance was most pronounced in the poorest two-fifths of localities. The limitations of the study include the potential for bias from unmeasured time-varying confounding and the fact that the PMAQ score has not been validated as a measure of quality of care.

Conclusions

Performance bonuses to family health team workers compared with traditional input-based budgets were associated with an improvement in the quality of care.

SUBMITTER: Fardousi N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9262241 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMany governments have introduced pay-for-performance programmes to incentivise health providers to improve quality of care. Evidence on whether these programmes reduce or exacerbate disparities in health care is scarce. In this study, we aimed to assess socioeconomic inequalities in the performance of family health teams under Brazil's National Programme for Improving Primary Care Access and Quality (PMAQ).MethodsFor this longitudinal study, we analysed data on the quality of care delivered by family health teams participating in PMAQ over three rounds of implementation: round 1 (November, 2011, to March, 2013), round 2 (April, 2013, to September, 2015), and round 3 (October, 2015, to December, 2019). The primary outcome was the percentage of the maximum performance score obtainable by family health teams (the PMAQ score), based on several hundred (ranging from 598 to 914) indicators of health-care delivery. Using census data on household income of local areas, we examined the PMAQ score by income ventile. We used ordinary least squares regressions to examine the association between PMAQ scores and the income of each local area across implementation rounds, and we did an analysis of variance to assess geographical variation in PMAQ score.FindingsOf the 40 361 family health teams that were registered as ever participating in PMAQ, we included 13 934 teams that participated in the three rounds of PMAQ in our analysis. These teams were located in 11 472 census areas and served approximately 48 million people. The mean PMAQ score was 61·0% (median 61·8, IQR 55·3-67·9) in round 1, 55·3% (median 56·0, IQR 47·6-63·4) in round 2, and 61·6% (median 62·7, IQR 54·4-69·9) in round 3. In round 1, we observed a positive socioeconomic gradient, with the mean PMAQ score ranging from 56·6% in the poorest group to 64·1% in the richest group. Between rounds 1 and 3, mean PMAQ performance increased by 7·1 percentage points for the poorest group and decreased by 0·8 percentage points for the richest group (p<0·0001), with the gap between richest and poorest narrowing from 7·5 percentage points (95% CI 6·5 to 8·5) to -0·4 percentage points over the same period (-1·6 to 0·8).InterpretationExisting income inequalities in the delivery of primary health care were eliminated during the three rounds of PMAQ, plausibly due to a design feature of PMAQ that adjusted financial payments for socioeconomic inequalities. However, there remains an important policy agenda in Brazil to address the large inequities in health.FundingUK Medical Research Council, Newton Fund, and CONFAP (Conselho Nacional das Fundações Estaduais de Amparo à Pesquisa).

Project description:AimThe aim of the study was to describe practices that support collaboration in interprofessional primary health care teams, and identify performance indicators perceived to measure the impact of this collaboration from the perspective of interprofessional health providers.BackgroundDespite the surge of interprofessional primary health care models implemented across Canada, there is little evidence as to whether or not the intended outcomes of primary health care teams have been achieved. Part of the challenge is determining the most appropriate measures that can demonstrate the value of collaborative care. To date, little remains known about performance measurement from the providers contributing to the collaborative care process in interprofessional primary care teams. Having providers from a range of disciplinary backgrounds assist in the development of performance measures can help identify measures most relevant to demonstrate the value of collaborative care on the intended outcomes of interprofessional primary care models.MethodsA qualitative study; part of a larger mixed methods developmental evaluation to examine performance measurement in interprofessional primary health care teams. A stakeholder workshop was conducted at an annual association meeting of interprofessional primary health care teams in the province of Ontario, Canada. Six questions guided the workshop groups and participant responses were documented on worksheets and flip charts. All responses were collected and entered verbatim into a word document. Qualitative analytic strategies were applied to each question.FindingsA total of 283 primary health care providers from 14 health professions working in interprofessional primary health care teams participated. Top three elements of interprofessional collaboration (total n = 628) were communication (n = 146), co-treatment (n = 112) and patient-based conferences (n = 81). Top three performance indicators currently used to demonstrate the value of interprofessional collaboration (total n = 241) were patient experience (n = 71), patient health status (n = 35) and within team referrals (n = 30).

Project description:ImportanceMobile integrated health care (MIH) is a new model of community-based health care to provide on-site urgent or nonurgent care. Niagara emergency medical services (NEMS) started MIH in 2018 to serve the Niagara region of Ontario, Canada. However, its economic impact is unknown.ObjectiveTo compare time on task and cost between MIH and ambulance delivered by NEMS from a public payer's perspective.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation was an analysis of the NEMS databases regarding responses to emergency calls by the NEMS from 2016 to 2019. Emergency calls serviced by MIH in 2018 to 2019 were used as an intervention cohort. Propensity score matching was used to identify a 1:1 matched cohort of calls serviced by regular ambulance response for the same period and 2 years prior. Statistical analyses were performed from January to April 2020.ExposuresMIH compared with matched ambulance services.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were the time on task (including time on scene and time at hospital) and costs. Costs were calculated in 2019 Canadian dollars using cost per minute and compared with the 3 ambulance cohorts.ResultsIn 2018 to 2019, there were 1740 calls serviced by MIH for which a matched ambulance cohort was identified for the same period and 2 years prior. The mean (SD) time on task was 72.7 (51.0) minutes for MIH, compared with 84.1 (52.0) minutes, 84.3 (54.1) minutes, and 79.4 (42.0) minutes for matched ambulance in 2018 to 2019, 2017 to 2018, and 2016 to 2017, respectively. Of calls serviced by MIH, 498 (28.6%) required ED transport (ie, after MIH team assessment, transport to ED was deemed to be necessary or demanded by the patient), compared with 1300 (74.7%) calls serviced by ambulance in 2018 to 2019, 1294 (74.4%) in 2017 to 2018, and 1359 (78.1%) in 2016 to 2017. The mean (SD) total cost per 1000 calls was $122 760 ($78 635) for MIH compared with $294 336 ($97 245), $299 797 ($104 456), and $297 269 ($81 144) for regular ambulance responses in the 3 matched cohorts, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceCompared with regular ambulance response, MIH was associated with a substantial reduction in the proportion of patients transported to the ED, leading to a substantial saving in total costs. This finding suggests that the MIH model is a promising and viable solution to meeting urgent health care needs in the community, while substantially improving the use of scarce health care resources.

Project description:BackgroundComputerized cognitive behavioral therapy (cCBT) can improve mental health outcomes in White populations; however, it is unknown whether racial and ethnic minority populations receive clinical benefits from cCBT.ObjectiveTo study race differences in the impact of cCBT use on mental health outcomes among White and African American primary care patients.DesignSecondary analysis of a three-arm randomized controlled clinical trial.ParticipantsPrimary care physicians (PCPs) referred 2,884 patients aged 18-75; 954 met eligibility criteria (including elevated mood and/or anxiety symptoms indicated as a score ? 10 on Patient Health Questionnaire or Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale); 704 were randomized in 3:3:1 ratio to receive either (1) the cCBT program (cCBT-only), (2) cCBT plus access to an Internet Support Group (cCBT+ISG), or (3) their PCP's usual care (UC). After exclusions, this study analyzed 689 patients: 590 receiving cCBT, in the combined cCBT-only and cCBT+ISG groups (91 African American, 499 White), and 99 receiving UC (22 African American, 77 White).Intervention(s)We used the Beating the Blues cCBT program that consisted of eight 50-min Internet-delivered interactive sessions and "homework" assignments to complete between weekly sessions. College graduate-level care coaches provided six months of remote support.Main measure(s)After prior analyses demonstrated no effect of the ISG program, we combined the cCBT-only and cCBT+ISG groups (cCBT) to compare to UC at 6-month follow-up. Controlling for sociodemographic factors, baseline symptoms, and treatment arm, we examined race differences for impact of cCBT versus UC on the mental health-related quality-of-life (Short-form 12 Health Survey), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) anxiety, and depression.ResultsCompared to UC, cCBT had no effect on quality of life (d = 0.10; p = 0.40), depression (d = - 0.19; p = 0.10), or anxiety (d = - 0.16; p = 0.18) for Whites. However, for African American patients, cCBT was associated with significant 6-month decrease in depression (d = - 0.47, p < 0.01) and anxiety scores (d = - 0.54, p < 0.01).ConclusionscCBT may be an efficient and scalable first step to eliminating disparities in mental health care.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01482806. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01482806?term=rollman&rank=4.

Project description:Recent increases in fertility rates in Egypt and an increase in desired fertility among unmarried young people highlight the need for renewed attention to awareness of and demand for family planning (FP) among young people. Between 2017 and 2018, the United States Agency for International Development-funded Evidence Project tested 2 intervention models to increase awareness of and demand for FP and reproductive health (RH) services among people aged 18-35 years in Souhag and Port Said governorates, Egypt. In Souhag, FP/RH information was integrated into a 5-day livelihood training program for job seekers. In Port Said, garment factory workers received FP/RH information through trained peer educators, social and behavior change materials, and social media. Workshop participants and factory workers interested in FP services were referred to private project-trained physicians and pharmacists. We present the results of an evaluation of the impact of each intervention on young people's reported exposure to FP messages and their FP knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Phone interviews were conducted with participants in intervention and comparison groups before and after the intervention. In Souhag, 1,519 intervention group participants (778 at baseline; 741 at endline) and 1,082 comparison group participants (699 at baseline; 383 at endline) completed the phone interview. In Port Said 1,958 participants from intervention factories (1,145 at baseline; 813 at endline) and 1,047 participants from comparison factories (621 at baseline; 426 at endline) completed the phone interview. A difference-in-differences analysis compared intervention and comparison groups between baseline and endline. Results showed significant differences in knowledge and attitudes over time between the intervention and comparison groups in Souhag but less so in Port Said. FP use did not change among project participants in either governorate. We discuss lessons learned from integrating FP into worker health and livelihood training programs and methodological considerations for evaluating such interventions.