↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

The effect of financial incentives on the quality of health care provided by primary care physicians

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
policy
4 policy sources
twitter
80 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
468 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1088 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
The effect of financial incentives on the quality of health care provided by primary care physicians
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008451.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anthony Scott, Peter Sivey, Driss Ait Ouakrim, Lisa Willenberg, Lucio Naccarella, John Furler, Doris Young

Abstract

The use of blended payment schemes in primary care, including the use of financial incentives to directly reward 'performance' and 'quality' is increasing in a number of countries. There are many examples in the US, and the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QoF) for general practitioners (GPs) in the UK is an example of a major system-wide reform. Despite the popularity of these schemes, there is currently little rigorous evidence of their success in improving the quality of primary health care, or of whether such an approach is cost-effective relative to other ways to improve the quality of care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 80 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 1,088 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 11 1%
United States 7 <1%
Australia 5 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Ireland 2 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Other 6 <1%
Unknown 1048 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 186 17%
Student > Master 186 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 132 12%
Student > Bachelor 74 7%
Other 69 6%
Other 229 21%
Unknown 212 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 387 36%
Social Sciences 109 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 80 7%
Psychology 62 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 53 5%
Other 148 14%
Unknown 249 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 132. 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 09 October 2023.
All research outputs
#313,848
of 25,383,278 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#526
of 12,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,072
of 132,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,383,278 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,915 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 132,777 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.