0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Reports of unintended consequences of financial incentives to improve management of hypertension

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Given the increase in financial-incentive programs nationwide, many physicians and physician groups are concerned about potential unintended consequences of providing financial incentives to improve quality of care. However, few studies examine whether actual unintended consequences result from providing financial incentives to physicians. We sought to document the extent to which the unintended consequences discussed in the literature were observable in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) of financial incentives.

          Methods

          We conducted a qualitative observational study nested within a larger RCT of financial incentives to improve hypertension care. We conducted 30-minute telephone interviews with primary care personnel at facilities participating in the RCT housed at12 geographically dispersed Veterans Affairs Medical Centers nationwide. Participants answered questions about unintended effects, clinic team dynamics, organizational impact on care delivery, study participation. We employed a blend of inductive and deductive qualitative techniques for analysis.

          Participants

          Sixty-five participants were recruited from RCT enrollees and personnel not enrolled in the larger RCT, plus one primary care leader per site.

          Results

          Emergent themes included possible patient harm, emphasis on documentation over improving care, reduced professional morale, and positive spillover. All discussions of unintended consequences involving patient harm were only concerns, not actual events. Several unintended consequences concerned ancillary initiatives for quality improvement (e.g., practice guidelines and performance measurement systems) rather than financial incentives.

          Conclusions

          Many unintended consequences of financial incentives noted were either only concerns or attributable to ancillary quality-improvement initiatives. Actual unintended consequences included improved documentation of care without necessarily improving actual care, and positive unintended consequences.

          Trial registration

          Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00302718

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Book: not found

          The Discovery of Grounded Theory

          <p>Most writing on sociological method has been concerned with how accurate facts can be obtained and how theory can thereby be more rigorously tested. In The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss address the equally Important enterprise of how the discovery of theory from data--systematically obtained and analyzed in social research--can be furthered. The discovery of theory from data--grounded theory--is a major task confronting sociology, for such a theory fits empirical situations, and is understandable to sociologists and laymen alike. Most important, it provides relevant predictions, explanations, interpretations, and applications.</p><p>In Part I of the book, Generation Theory by Comparative Analysis, the authors present a strategy whereby sociologists can facilitate the discovery of grounded theory, both substantive and formal. This strategy involves the systematic choice and study of several comparison groups. In Part II, The Flexible Use of Data, the generation of theory from qualitative, especially documentary, and quantitative data Is considered. In Part III, Implications of Grounded Theory, Glaser and Strauss examine the credibility of grounded theory.</p><p>The Discovery of Grounded Theory is directed toward improving social scientists' capacity for generating theory that will be relevant to their research. While aimed primarily at sociologists, it will be useful to anyone Interested In studying social phenomena--political, educational, economic, industrial-- especially If their studies are based on qualitative data.</p></p>
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Book: not found

            Basics of Qualitative Research : Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory

            The Second Edition of this best-selling textbook continues to offer immensely practical advice and technical expertise that will aid researchers in analyzing and interpreting their collected data, and ultimately build theory from it. The authors provide a step-by-step guide to the research act. Full of definitions and illustrative examples, the book presents criteria for evaluating a study as well as responses to common questions posed by students of qualitative research.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Meta-analysis: audit and feedback features impact effectiveness on care quality.

              Audit and feedback (A&F) has long been used to improve quality of care, albeit with variable results. This meta-analytic study tested whether Feedback Intervention Theory, a framework from industrial/organizational psychology, explains the observed variability in health care A&F research. studies cited by Jamtvedt's 2006 Cochrane systematic review of A&F, followed by database searches using the Cochrane review's search strategy to identify more recent studies. Cochrane review criteria, plus: presence of a treatment group receiving only A & F; a control group receiving no intervention; a quantitatively measurable outcome; minimum n of 10 per arm; sufficient statistics for effect size calculations. Moderators: presence of discouragement and praise; correct solution, attainment level, velocity, frequency, and normative information; feedback format (verbal, textual, graphic, public, computerized, group vs. individual); goal setting activity. meta-analytic procedures using the Hedges-Olkin method. Of 519 studies initially identified, 19 met all inclusion criteria. Studies were most often excluded due to the lack of a feedback-only arm. A&F has a modest, though significant positive effect on quality outcomes (d = 0.40, 95% confidence interval = +/-0.20); providing specific suggestions for improvement, written, and more frequent feedback strengthened this effect, whereas graphical and verbal feedback attenuated this effect. A&F effectiveness is improved when feedback is delivered with specific suggestions for improvement, in writing, and frequently. Other feedback characteristics could also potentially improve effectiveness; however, research with stricter experimental controls is needed to identify the specific feedback characteristics that maximize its effectiveness.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                21 September 2017
                2017
                : 12
                : 9
                : e0184856
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Houston VA HSR&D Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America
                [2 ] Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America
                [3 ] VISN 4 Center for Evaluation of PACT (CEPACT), Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
                Université Versailles Saint-Quentin en Yvelines, FRANCE
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9063-5207
                Article
                PONE-D-16-29435
                10.1371/journal.pone.0184856
                5608267
                28934258
                9b6aa979-b108-4b98-8f14-6ba67fa4cf03

                This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

                History
                : 15 August 2016
                : 1 September 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 3, Pages: 14
                Funding
                The work reported here was funded by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Program (grant # IIR-04-349 [PI Laura A. Peterson, MD, MPH]) and the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (Grant # RO1 HL079173-01 [PI Laura A. Petersen, MD, MPH]), the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2010 (NHLBI 1RQ1HL079173-52). Dr. Petersen was a recipient of the American Heart Association Established Investigator Award (Grant number 0540043N) and was a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Generalist Physician Faculty Scholar (Grant number 045444) at the time that this study was planned and funded. Dr. Hysong was a recipient of an NHLBI Investigator Research Supplement to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Research (1R01HL079173-S1) during the early stages of the study and is currently a VA HSR&D Career Development Awardee (CDA 07-0181). The work was also supported with the use of resources and facilities at the Houston VA HSR&D Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (CIN13-413). The funders played no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The views expressed reflect those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health, US Government or Baylor College of Medicine.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Social Sciences
                Economics
                Finance
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Professions
                Medical Personnel
                Medical Doctors
                Physicians
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Providers
                Medical Doctors
                Physicians
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Vascular Medicine
                Blood Pressure
                Hypertension
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Clinical Medicine
                Clinical Trials
                Randomized Controlled Trials
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pharmacology
                Drug Research and Development
                Clinical Trials
                Randomized Controlled Trials
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Clinical Trials
                Randomized Controlled Trials
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Primary Care
                Social Sciences
                Economics
                Health Economics
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Economics
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Veteran Care
                Engineering and Technology
                Control Engineering
                Control Theory
                Computer and Information Sciences
                Systems Science
                Control Theory
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Systems Science
                Control Theory
                Custom metadata
                Our data consists of verbatim transcripts from participant interviews; thus uploading these data would violate our promises to participants to maintain their confidentiality, as participants’ roles and their discussions of facility details as well as speech patterns would likely identify the participants to anyone who might know them. Parties interested in obtaining a de-identified copy of the data may contact Ms. Suzette Stine, our department’s Research and Data Security coordinator, at suzette.stine@ 123456va.gov .

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article