The evidence gap on gendered impacts of performance-based financing among family physicians for chronic disease care: a systematic review reanalysis in contexts of single-payer universal coverage

Human Resources for Health

Neeru Gupta¹  Holly M. Ayles² 

[1] Department of Sociology, University of New Brunswick, PO Box 4400, 9 Macaulay Lane, E3B 5A3, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada;Faculty of Management, University of New Brunswick, PO Box 4400, 7 Macaulay Lane, E3B 5A3, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada;

关键词: Physician reimbursement;    Gender-based analysis;    Health workforce financing;    Pay-for-performance;    Systematic review;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12960-020-00512-9

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundAlthough pay-for-performance (P4P) among primary care physicians for enhanced chronic disease management is increasingly common, the evidence base is fragmented in terms of socially equitable impacts in achieving the quadruple aim for healthcare improvement: better population health, reduced healthcare costs, and enhanced patient and provider experiences. This study aimed to assess the literature from a systematic review on how P4P for diabetes services impacts on gender equity in patient outcomes and the physician workforce.MethodsA gender-based analysis was performed of studies retrieved through a systematic search of 10 abstract and citation databases plus grey literature sources for P4P impact assessments in multiple languages over the period January 2000 to April 2018, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The study was restricted to single-payer national health systems to minimize the risk of physicians sorting out of health organizations with a strong performance pay component. Two reviewers scored and synthesized the integration of sex and gender in assessing patient- and provider-oriented outcomes as well as the quality of the evidence.FindingsOf the 2218 identified records, 39 studies covering eight P4P interventions in seven countries were included for analysis. Most (79%) of the studies reported having considered sex/gender in the design, but only 28% presented sex-disaggregated patient data in the results of the P4P assessment models, and none (0%) assessed the interaction of patients’ sex with the policy intervention. Few (15%) of the studies controlled for the provider’s sex, and none (0%) discussed impacts of P4P on the work life of providers from a gender perspective (e.g., pay equity).ConclusionsThere is a dearth of evidence on gender-based outcomes of publicly funded incentivizing physician payment schemes for chronic disease care. As the popularity of P4P to achieve health system goals continues to grow, so does the risk of unintended consequences. There is a critical need for research integrating gender concerns to help inform performance-based health workforce financing policy options in the era of the Sustainable Development Goals.

【 授权许可】

CC BY