Cargando…

Impact of financial incentives on alcohol intervention delivery in primary care: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND: Local and national financial incentives were introduced in England between 2008 and 2015 to encourage screening and brief alcohol intervention delivery in primary care. We used routine Read Code data and interviews with General Practitioners (GPs) to assess their impact. METHODS: A seque...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: O’Donnell, Amy, Haighton, Catherine, Chappel, David, Shevills, Colin, Kaner, Eileen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5124277/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27887577
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-016-0561-5
_version_ 1782469834493132800
author O’Donnell, Amy
Haighton, Catherine
Chappel, David
Shevills, Colin
Kaner, Eileen
author_facet O’Donnell, Amy
Haighton, Catherine
Chappel, David
Shevills, Colin
Kaner, Eileen
author_sort O’Donnell, Amy
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Local and national financial incentives were introduced in England between 2008 and 2015 to encourage screening and brief alcohol intervention delivery in primary care. We used routine Read Code data and interviews with General Practitioners (GPs) to assess their impact. METHODS: A sequential explanatory mixed-methods study was conducted in 16 general practices representing 106,700 patients and 99 GPs across two areas in Northern England. Data were extracted on screening and brief alcohol intervention delivery for 2010-11 and rates were calculated by practice incentive status. Semi-structured interviews with 14 GPs explored which factors influence intervention delivery and recording in routine consultations. RESULTS: Screening and brief alcohol intervention rates were higher in financially incentivised compared to non-incentivised practices. However absolute rates were low across all practices. Rates of short screening test administration ranged from 0.05% (95% CI: 0.03-0.08) in non-incentivised practices to 3.92% (95% CI: 3.70-4.14) in nationally incentivised practices. For the full AUDIT, rates were also highest in nationally incentivised practices (3.68%, 95% CI: 3.47-3.90) and lowest in non-incentivised practices (0.17%, 95% CI: 0.13-0.22). Delivery of alcohol interventions was highest in practices signed up to the national incentive scheme (9.23%, 95% CI: 8.91-9.57) and lowest in non-incentivised practices (4.73%, 95% CI: 4.50-4.96). GP Interviews highlighted a range of influences on alcohol intervention delivery and subsequent recording including: the hierarchy of different financial incentive schemes; mixed belief in the efficacy of alcohol interventions; the difficulty of codifying complex conditions; and GPs’ beliefs about patient-centred practice. CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives have had some success in encouraging screening and brief alcohol interventions in England, but levels of recorded activity remain low. To improve performance, future policies must prioritise alcohol prevention work within the quality and outcomes framework, and address the values, attitudes and beliefs that shape how GPs’ provide care. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-016-0561-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5124277
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51242772016-12-08 Impact of financial incentives on alcohol intervention delivery in primary care: a mixed-methods study O’Donnell, Amy Haighton, Catherine Chappel, David Shevills, Colin Kaner, Eileen BMC Fam Pract Research Article BACKGROUND: Local and national financial incentives were introduced in England between 2008 and 2015 to encourage screening and brief alcohol intervention delivery in primary care. We used routine Read Code data and interviews with General Practitioners (GPs) to assess their impact. METHODS: A sequential explanatory mixed-methods study was conducted in 16 general practices representing 106,700 patients and 99 GPs across two areas in Northern England. Data were extracted on screening and brief alcohol intervention delivery for 2010-11 and rates were calculated by practice incentive status. Semi-structured interviews with 14 GPs explored which factors influence intervention delivery and recording in routine consultations. RESULTS: Screening and brief alcohol intervention rates were higher in financially incentivised compared to non-incentivised practices. However absolute rates were low across all practices. Rates of short screening test administration ranged from 0.05% (95% CI: 0.03-0.08) in non-incentivised practices to 3.92% (95% CI: 3.70-4.14) in nationally incentivised practices. For the full AUDIT, rates were also highest in nationally incentivised practices (3.68%, 95% CI: 3.47-3.90) and lowest in non-incentivised practices (0.17%, 95% CI: 0.13-0.22). Delivery of alcohol interventions was highest in practices signed up to the national incentive scheme (9.23%, 95% CI: 8.91-9.57) and lowest in non-incentivised practices (4.73%, 95% CI: 4.50-4.96). GP Interviews highlighted a range of influences on alcohol intervention delivery and subsequent recording including: the hierarchy of different financial incentive schemes; mixed belief in the efficacy of alcohol interventions; the difficulty of codifying complex conditions; and GPs’ beliefs about patient-centred practice. CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives have had some success in encouraging screening and brief alcohol interventions in England, but levels of recorded activity remain low. To improve performance, future policies must prioritise alcohol prevention work within the quality and outcomes framework, and address the values, attitudes and beliefs that shape how GPs’ provide care. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-016-0561-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-11-25 /pmc/articles/PMC5124277/ /pubmed/27887577 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-016-0561-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
O’Donnell, Amy
Haighton, Catherine
Chappel, David
Shevills, Colin
Kaner, Eileen
Impact of financial incentives on alcohol intervention delivery in primary care: a mixed-methods study
title Impact of financial incentives on alcohol intervention delivery in primary care: a mixed-methods study
title_full Impact of financial incentives on alcohol intervention delivery in primary care: a mixed-methods study
title_fullStr Impact of financial incentives on alcohol intervention delivery in primary care: a mixed-methods study
title_full_unstemmed Impact of financial incentives on alcohol intervention delivery in primary care: a mixed-methods study
title_short Impact of financial incentives on alcohol intervention delivery in primary care: a mixed-methods study
title_sort impact of financial incentives on alcohol intervention delivery in primary care: a mixed-methods study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5124277/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27887577
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-016-0561-5
work_keys_str_mv AT odonnellamy impactoffinancialincentivesonalcoholinterventiondeliveryinprimarycareamixedmethodsstudy
AT haightoncatherine impactoffinancialincentivesonalcoholinterventiondeliveryinprimarycareamixedmethodsstudy
AT chappeldavid impactoffinancialincentivesonalcoholinterventiondeliveryinprimarycareamixedmethodsstudy
AT shevillscolin impactoffinancialincentivesonalcoholinterventiondeliveryinprimarycareamixedmethodsstudy
AT kanereileen impactoffinancialincentivesonalcoholinterventiondeliveryinprimarycareamixedmethodsstudy