Young doctors' preferences for payment systems: the influence of gender and personality traits

Profiling health professionals' personality traits, behaviour styles and emotional intelligence: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Non-cognitive traits have been theorised to predict characteristics, career choice and outcomes of health professionals and could represent a homogenous group. This study aims to profile and compare personality traits, behaviour styles and emotional intelligence of health practitioners across a variety of professions.

METHODS

Empirical literature was systematically reviewed. A two-concept search strategy was applied to four databases (CINAHL, PubMed, Embase, ProQuest). Title/abstract and full text articles were screened against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Methodological quality was assessed using Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data was synthesised narratively and meta-aggregated where feasible.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty-one studies representing 153 assessment tools of personality (n = 83 studies), behaviour (n = 8), and emotional intelligence (n = 62) were included. Most studies (n = 171) explored personality (medicine, nursing, nursing assistants, dentistry, allied health, paramedics), revealing variation in traits across professions. Behaviour styles were least measured with only ten studies exploring these across four health professions (nursing, medicine, occupational therapy, psychology). Emotional intelligence (n = 146 studies) varied amongst professions (medicine, nursing, dentistry, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, radiology) with all exhibiting average to above-average scores.

CONCLUSION

Personality traits, behaviour styles and emotional intelligence are all key characteristics of health professionals reported in the literature. There is both heterogeneity and homogeneity within and between professional groups. The characterisation and understanding of these non-cognitive traits will aid health professionals to understand their own non-cognitive features and how these might be useful in predicting performance with potential to adapt these to enhance success within their chosen profession.

Primary care physician payment mechanisms toward universal health coverage: A study of Iran and selected countries

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Primary care physician (PCP) payment mechanisms can be important tools for addressing issues of access, quality, and equity in health care. The purpose of the present study is to compare the PCP payment mechanisms of Iran, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, England, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Turkey, and Thailand.

METHODS

This is a descriptive-comparative study comparing the PCP payment mechanisms of Iran and selected countries in 2020. Data for each country are collected from reliable databases and are tabulated to compare their payment models. Framework analysis is used for data analysis.

RESULTS

The results are provided in terms of PCP payment mechanisms, adjusting factor for capitation, reasons for fee-for-service payment, the role of pay-for-performance (PFP) programme, domain and indicators, and reasons for developing PFP in each country.

CONCLUSION

The majority of the countries with high UHC service coverage index have applied a mix of PCP payment mechanisms, most of which include capitation and PFP. Moreover, adjusting capitation by factors such as age, sex, and health status will lead to provision of better services to high-risk populations. In recent years, PFP has been paid to Iranian PCPs in addition to salary. Given the various existing models for primary health care in Iran and the increasing burden of chronic diseases, a more appropriate combination of payment mechanisms that create more incentives to provide active and high-quality care should be developed. Also, when developing payment mechanisms, the required infrastructure such as electronic health record should be considered.

Primary care physicians' perceptions of the role of alternative payment models in recruitment and retention in rural Alberta: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Despite well-documented challenges in recruiting physicians to rural practice, few Canadian studies have described the role physician payment models may play in attracting and retaining physicians to rural practice. This study examined the perspectives of rural primary care physicians on the factors that attract and retain physicians in rural locations, including the role that alternative payment models (APMs) might play.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study involving in-depth, open-ended interviews with rural primary care physicians practising under fee-for-service (FFS) models and APMs in Alberta, Canada. Participants were recruited from the Rural Health Professions Action Plan member list (consisting of physicians practising in rural or remote locations in Alberta) and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta online database. Interviews were conducted April to June 2020, and data were analyzed using a thematic framework approach.

RESULTS

Fourteen physicians were interviewed. There were 5 themes identified: factors that attract physicians to rural practice, barriers and challenges associated with rural practice, the potential role of APMs in recruitment and retention, factors that physicians consider in deciding to change payment models, and physician perceptions of APMs compared with FFS models. Participants expressed that APMs may have some role to play in retaining rural physicians but identified professional challenges, and family-related and personal factors as key determinants. Most FFS physicians indicated that they were interested in exploring APMs provided specific concerns were addressed (e.g., clear and adequately compensated APM contracts, and physician involvement in the development of APMs).

INTERPRETATION

Primary care physicians practising in rural regions in Alberta view payment models as one consideration among many in their decision to pursue rural practice. Alternative payment model contracts designed with the input of physicians may have a role to play in attracting and retaining physicians to rural 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.

Factors that influence specialist physician preferences for fee-for-service and salary-based payment models: A qualitative study

Most physicians across the world are paid through fee-for-service. However, there is increased interest in alternative payment models such as salary, capitation, episode-based payment, pay-for-performance, and strategic blends of these models. Such models may be more aligned with broad health policy goals such as fiscal sustainability, delivery of high-quality care, and physician and patient well-being. Despite this, there is limited research on physicians' preferences for different models and a disproportionate focus on differences in income over other issues such as physician autonomy and purpose. Using qualitative interviews with 32 specialist physicians in Alberta, Canada, we examined factors that influence preferences for fee-for-service (FFS) and salary-based payment models. Our findings suggest that a series of factors relating to (1) physician characteristics, (2) payment model characteristics, and (3) professional interests influence preferences. Within these themes, flexibility, autonomy, and compatibility with academic roles were highlighted. To encourage physicians to select a specific payment model, the model must appeal to them in terms of income potential as well as non-monetary values. These findings can support constructive discussions about the merits of different payment models and can assist policy makers in considering the impact of payment reform.

A Realist Evaluation of Theory about Triggers for Doctors Choosing a Generalist or Specialist Medical Career

There is a lack of theory about what drives choice to be a generalist or specialist doctor, an important issue in many countries for increasing primary/preventative care. We did a realist evaluation to develop a theory to inform what works for whom, when and in what contexts, to yield doctors’ choice to be a generalist or specialist. We interviewed 32 Australian doctors (graduates of a large university medical school) who had decided on a generalist (GP/public health) or specialist (all other specialties) career. They reflected on their personal responses to experiences at different times to stimulate their choice. Theory was refined and confirmed by testing it with 17 additional doctors of various specialties/career stages and by referring to wider literature. Our final theory showed the decision involved multi-level contextual factors intersecting with eight triggers to produce either a specialist or generalist choice. Both clinical and place-based exposures, as well as attributes, skills, norms and status of different fields affected choice. This occurred relative to the interests and expectations of different doctors, including their values for professional, socio-economic and lifestyle rewards, often intersecting with issues like gender and life stage. Applying this theory, it is possible to tailor selection and ongoing exposures to yield more generalists.

Sorting into payment schemes and medical treatment: A laboratory experiment

In this study, we introduce the opportunity for physicians to sort into capitation or fee-for-service payment. Using a controlled medically framed laboratory experiment with a sequential within-subject design allows isolating sorting from incentive effects. We observe a strong preference for fee-for-service payment, which does not depend on subjects' prior experience with one of the two payment schemes. Further, we identify a significant sorting effect. Subjects choosing capitation deviate ex ante less from patient-optimal medical treatment than subjects who sort into fee-for-service payment. Particularly the latter become even less patient-oriented after introducing the choice option. Consequently, the opportunity to choose between fee-for-service and capitation payment worsens patient treatment, if at all. Our results hold for medical and for nonmedical students.