Financial Incentives and Inequalities in Smoking Cessation Interventions in Primary Care: Before-and-After Study

Reducing health inequalities through general practice: a realist review and action framework

Background

Socio-economic inequalities in health have been in the public agenda for decades. General practice has an influential role to play in mitigating the impact of inequalities especially regarding chronic conditions. At the moment, general practice is dealing with serious challenges in relation to workforce shortages, increasing workload and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to identify effective ways so that general practice can play its role in reducing health inequalities.

Objectives

We explored what types of interventions and aspects of routine care in general practice decrease or increase inequalities in health and care-related outcomes. We focused on cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We explored for whom these interventions and aspects of care work best, why, and in what circumstances. Our main objective was to synthesise this evidence into specific guidance for healthcare professionals and decision-makers about how best to achieve equitable general practice.

Design

Realist review.

Main outcome measures

Clinical or care-related outcomes by socio-economic group, or other PROGRESS-Plus criteria.

Review methods

Realist review based on Pawson's five steps: (1) locating existing theories, (2) searching for evidence, (3) selecting articles, (4) extracting and organising data and (5) synthesising the evidence.

Results

Three hundred and twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria and 159 of them were selected for the evidence synthesis. Evidence about the impact of general practice interventions on health inequalities is limited. To reduce health inequalities, general practice needs to be: • connected so that interventions are linked and coordinated across the sector; • intersectional to account for the fact that people's experience is affected by many of their characteristics; • flexible to meet patients' different needs and preferences; • inclusive so that it does not exclude people because of who they are; • community-centred so that people who receive care engage with its design and delivery. These qualities should inform action across four domains: structures like funding and workforce distribution, organisational culture, everyday regulated procedures involved in care delivery, interpersonal and community relationships.

Limitations

The reviewed evidence offers limited detail about the ways and the extent to which specific interventions increase or decrease inequalities in general practice. Therefore, we focused on the underpinning principles that were common across interventions to produce higher-level, transferrable conclusions about ways to achieve equitable care.

Conclusions

Inequalities in general practice result from complex processes across four different domains that include structures, ideas, regulated everyday procedures, and relationships among individuals and communities. To achieve equity, general practice needs to be connected, intersectional, flexible, inclusive and community-centred.

Future work

Future work should focus on how these five essential qualities can be better used to shape the organisational development of future general practice.

Study registration

This trial is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020217871.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130694) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 7. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Reducing health inequalities through general practice

Although general practice can contribute to reducing health inequalities, existing evidence provides little guidance on how this reduction can be achieved. We reviewed interventions influencing health and care inequalities in general practice and developed an action framework for health professionals and decision makers. We conducted a realist review by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for systematic reviews of interventions into health inequality in general practice. We then screened the studies in the included systematic reviews for those that reported their outcomes by socioeconomic status or other PROGRESS-Plus (Cochrane Equity Methods Group) categories. 159 studies were included in the evidence synthesis. Robust evidence on the effect of general practice on health inequalities is scarce. Focusing on common qualities of interventions, we found that to reduce health inequalities, general practice needs to be informed by five key principles: involving coordinated services across the system (ie, connected), accounting for differences within patient groups (ie, intersectional), making allowances for different patient needs and preferences (ie, flexible), integrating patient worldviews and cultural references (ie, inclusive), and engaging communities with service design and delivery (ie, community-centred). Future work should explore how these principles can inform the organisational development of general practice.

Payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings

BACKGROUND

Changes to the method of payment for healthcare providers, including pay-for-performance schemes, are increasingly being used by governments, health insurers, and employers to help align financial incentives with health system goals. In this review we focused on changes to the method and level of payment for all types of healthcare providers in outpatient healthcare settings. Outpatient healthcare settings, broadly defined as 'out of hospital' care including primary care, are important for health systems in reducing the use of more expensive hospital services.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of different payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings on the quantity and quality of health service provision, patient outcomes, healthcare provider outcomes, cost of service provision, and adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase (searched 5 March 2019), and several other databases. In addition, we searched clinical trials platforms, grey literature, screened reference lists of included studies, did a cited reference search for included studies, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. We screened records from an updated search in August 2020, with any potentially relevant studies categorised as awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, and repeated measures studies that compared different payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient care settings.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We conducted a structured synthesis. We first categorised the payment methods comparisons and outcomes, and then described the effects of different types of payment methods on different outcome categories. Where feasible, we used meta-analysis to synthesise the effects of payment interventions under the same category. Where it was not possible to perform meta-analysis, we have reported means/medians and full ranges of the available point estimates. We have reported the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the relative difference (as per cent change or mean difference (MD)) for continuous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 studies in the review: 12 randomised trials, 13 controlled before-and-after studies, one interrupted time series, and one repeated measure study. Most healthcare providers were primary care physicians. Most of the payment methods were implemented by health insurance schemes in high-income countries, with only one study from a low- or middle-income country. The included studies were categorised into four groups based on comparisons of different payment methods. (1) Pay for performance (P4P) plus existing payment methods compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings P4P incentives probably improve child immunisation status (RR 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.36; 3760 patients; moderate-certainty evidence) and may slightly increase the number of patients who are asked more detailed questions on their disease by their pharmacist (MD 1.24, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.54; 454 patients; low-certainty evidence). P4P may slightly improve primary care physicians' prescribing of guideline-recommended antihypertensive medicines compared with an existing payment method (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.12; 362 patients; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effects of extra P4P incentives on mean blood pressure reduction for patients and costs for providing services compared with an existing payment method (very low-certainty evidence). Outcomes related to workload or other health professional outcomes were not reported in the included studies. One randomised trial found that compared to the control group, the performance of incentivised professionals was not sustained after the P4P intervention had ended. (2) Fee for service (FFS) compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings We are uncertain about the effect of FFS on the quantity of health services delivered (outpatient visits and hospitalisations), patient health outcomes, and total drugs cost compared to an existing payment method due to very low-certainty evidence. The quality of service provision and health professional outcomes were not reported in the included studies. One randomised trial reported that physicians paid via FFS may see more well patients than salaried physicians (low-certainty evidence), possibly implying that more unnecessary services were delivered through FFS. (3) FFS mixed with existing payment methods compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings FFS mixed payment method may increase the quantity of health services provided compared with an existing payment method (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.76; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of FFS mixed payment on quality of services provided, patient health outcomes, and health professional outcomes compared with an existing payment method due to very low-certainty evidence. Cost outcomes and adverse effects were not reported in the included studies. (4) Enhanced FFS compared with FFS for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings Enhanced FFS (higher FFS payment) probably increases child immunisation rates (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.48; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether higher FFS payment results in more primary care visits and about the effect of enhanced FFS on the net expenditure per year on covered children with regular FFS (very low-certainty evidence). Quality of service provision, patient outcomes, health professional outcomes, and adverse effects were not reported in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings, P4P or an increase in FFS payment level probably increases the quantity of health service provision (moderate-certainty evidence), and P4P may slightly improve the quality of service provision for targeted conditions (low-certainty evidence). The effects of changes in payment methods on health outcomes is uncertain due to very low-certainty evidence. Information to explore the influence of specific payment method design features, such as the size of incentives and type of performance measures, was insufficient. Furthermore, due to limited and very low-certainty evidence, it is uncertain if changing payment models without including additional funding for professionals would have similar effects. There is a need for further well-conducted research on payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings in low- and middle-income countries; more studies comparing the impacts of different designs of the same payment method; and studies that consider the unintended consequences of payment interventions.

Impact of population tobacco control interventions on socioeconomic inequalities in smoking: a systematic review and appraisal of future research directions

BACKGROUND

While price increases and targeted cessation support have been found to reduce inequalities in smoking by socioeconomic status (SES), evidence on other measures is mixed. We aimed to update the most recent (2014) previous review by identifying and appraising evidence published since 2013 on the equity impact of population tobacco control measures.

METHODS

Systematic searching of 10 electronic databases and hand-searching of four key journals identified 68 primary research articles published since 2013 that sought to examine the equity impact of population tobacco control measures in high-income countries with a negative socioeconomic gradient in smoking. Reported equity impacts were categorised as positive (greater impact among lower SES), neutral (no difference by SES), negative (greater impact among higher SES) or mixed/unclear.

RESULTS

There was substantial growth in research seeking to evaluate the equity impact of tobacco control interventions, but the majority of new studies showed mixed/unclear results. Findings for price increases and targeted cessation support continue to suggest an equity-positive impact, but limitations in the available evidence make further assessment difficult. Substantial differences in the context, scale and implementation of tobacco control policies make straightforward comparison of findings from the previous 2014 and current reviews problematic.

CONCLUSION

Researchers need to adopt more sophisticated, multidisciplinary approaches in evaluating the equity impact of tobacco control measures-developing robust measures of equity effect and using frameworks that take account of context, existing systems/processes and the likely mechanisms of action. Socioeconomic differences in intervention impact within low-income and middle-income countries require evaluation.

Impact of specialist and primary care stop smoking support on socio-economic inequalities in cessation in the United Kingdom: a systematic review and national equity initial review completed 22 January 2019; final version accepted 19 July 2019 analysis

AIM

To assess the impact of UK specialist and primary care-based stop smoking support on socio-economic inequalities in cessation.

METHODS

Systematic review and narrative synthesis, with a national equity analysis of stop smoking services (SSS). Ten bibliographic databases were searched for studies of any design, published since 2012, which evaluated specialist or primary care-based stop smoking support by socio-economic status (SES) or within a disadvantaged group. Studies could report on any cessation-related outcome. National Statistics were combined to estimate population-level SSS reach and impact among all smokers by SES. Overall, we included 27 published studies and three collated, national SSS reports for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland (equivalent data for Wales were unavailable).

RESULTS

Primary care providers and SSS in the United Kingdom were particularly effective at engaging and supporting disadvantaged smokers. Low SES groups were more likely to have their smoking status assessed, to receive general practitioner brief cessation advice/SSS referral and to attempt a quit with SSS support. Although disadvantaged SSS clients were less successful in quitting, increased service reach offset these lower quit rates, resulting in higher service impact among smokers from low SES groups. Interventions that offer tailored and targeted support have the potential to improve quit outcomes among disadvantaged smokers.

CONCLUSIONS

Equity-orientated stop smoking support can compensate for lower quit rates among disadvantaged smokers through the use of equity-based performance targets, provision of targeted services and the development of tailored interventions.

Sex Differences in the Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk in Primary Health Care: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether sex differences exist in the assessment of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk scores/risk factors in primary health care.

DESIGN/METHODS

PubMed and EMBASE were systematically searched on 31 January 2017. Clinical trials and observational studies were included if they reported on the assessment of CVD risk score, blood pressure (BP), cholesterol or smoking status in primary health care, stratified by sex. Meta-analyses were performed, using random effects models, to determine differences between sexes, separately for adjusted and unadjusted data.

RESULTS

Of 14,928 studies found in the search, 22 studies (including 4,754,782 patients) were included in the systematic review with the meta-analysis for quantitative assessment. Overall, the assessment rates of CVD risk score and risk factors were similar in women and men (CVD risk score: 30.7% vs. 35.2% [difference (95% CI): -4.5 (-5.1, -3.9)]; BP: 91.3% vs. 88.5% [2.8 (2.5, 3.0)]; cholesterol: 69.9% vs. 71.0% [-1.1 (-1.5, -0.8)]; and smoking: 85.9% vs. 86.7% [-0.8 (-1.1, -0.5)]). The pooled, adjusted likelihood of having the risk score, BP and cholesterol assessments were comparable between women and men: OR (95% CI): 0.87 (0.70, 1.07); 1.41 (0.89, 2.25); and 1.15 (0.82, 1.60), respectively. However, women were 32% less likely to be assessed for smoking (0.68 [0.47, 1.00]). There was substantial heterogeneity between studies and the risk of publication bias was moderate.

CONCLUSION

Despite the guideline recommendations, assessment of CVD risk score in primary health care was low in both sexes. Further, women were less likely to be assessed for their smoking status than men, whereas no sex discrepancies were found for BP and cholesterol assessments.

[Interventions for smoking cessation among low socioeconomic status smokers: a literature review]

INTRODUCTION

In most western countries, smoking appears to be highly differentiated according to socio-economic level. Two systematic reviews published in 2014 showed that most of the recommended interventions for smoking cessation, particularly individual interventions, tend to increase social inequalities in health. An analysis of the most recent literature was carried out in order to provide policy makers and stakeholders with a set of evidence on the modalities of interventions to encourage and help disadvantaged smokers quit smoking.

METHODS

This review was based on articles published between January 2013 and April 2016. Only studies conducted in European countries or countries in stage 4 of the tobacco epidemic (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) were included. Selected articles were double-screened.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies were identified, including evaluation of media campaigns, face-to-face behavioural support, phone- and web-based support or awareness of passive smoking among children. Some interventions adapted to precarious populations have been shown to be effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Some characteristics would facilitate access and improve the support of disadvantaged groups, including a local intervention, a proactive approach and co-construction with targeted smokers.

Effectiveness of UK provider financial incentives on quality of care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Provider financial incentives are being increasingly adopted to help improve standards of care while promoting efficiency.

AIM

To review the UK evidence on whether provider financial incentives are an effective way of improving the quality of health care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review of UK evidence, undertaken in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations.

METHOD

MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched in August 2016. Original articles that assessed the relationship between UK provider financial incentives and a quantitative measure of quality of health care were included. Studies showing improvement for all measures of quality of care were defined as 'positive', those that were 'intermediate' showed improvement in some measures, and those classified as 'negative' showed a worsening of measures. Studies showing no effect were documented as such. Quality was assessed using the Downs and Black quality checklist.

RESULTS

Of the 232 published articles identified by the systematic search, 28 were included. Of these, nine reported positive effects of incentives on quality of care, 16 reported intermediate effects, two reported no effect, and one reported a negative effect. Quality assessment scores for included articles ranged from 15 to 19, out of a maximum of 22 points.

CONCLUSION

The effects of UK provider financial incentives on healthcare quality are unclear. Owing to this uncertainty and their significant costs, use of them may be counterproductive to their goal of improving healthcare quality and efficiency. UK policymakers should be cautious when implementing these incentives - if used, they should be subject to careful long-term monitoring and evaluation. Further research is needed to assess whether provider financial incentives represent a cost-effective intervention to improve the quality of care delivered in the UK.

Smoking cessation and the cardiovascular patient

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality. Our review highlights research from 2013 to 2015 on the treatment of cigarette smoking, with a focus on heart patients and cardiovascular outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Seeking to maximize the reach and effectiveness of existing cessation medications, current tobacco control research has demonstrated the safety and efficacy of combination treatment, extended use, reduce-to-quit strategies, and personalized approaches to treatment matching. Further, cytisine has gained interest as a lower-cost strategy for addressing the global tobacco epidemic. On the harm reduction front, snus and electronic nicotine delivery systems are being widely distributed and promoted with major gaps in knowledge of the safety of long-term and dual use. Quitlines, comparable in outcome to in-person treatment, make cessation counseling available on a national scale, though use rates remain relatively low. Employee reward programs are gaining attention given the high costs of tobacco use to employers; sustaining quit rates postpayment, however, has proven challenging.

SUMMARY

Evidence-based cessation treatments exist. Broader dissemination, adoption, and implementation are key to addressing the tobacco epidemic. The cardiology team has a professional obligation to advance tobacco control efforts and can play an important role in achieving a smoke-free future.