Impact of pay for performance on prescribing of long-acting reversible contraception in primary care: an interrupted time series study

Understanding barriers to using long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) in primary care: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) are highly effective. In primary care, LARCs are prescribed less frequently than user-dependent contraceptives despite higher efficacy rates. Unplanned pregnancies are rising in the UK, and LARCs may have a role in reducing these through and redressing inequitable contraceptive access. To provide contraceptive services that offer maximal choice and patient benefit, we must understand what contraception users and healthcare professionals (HCPs) think about LARCs and uncover barriers to their use.

METHODS

A systematic search using CINAHL, MEDLINE via Ovid, PsycINFO, Web of Science and EMBASE identified research about LARC use for pregnancy prevention in primary care. The approach adhered to the 'Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses' methodology, critically appraised the literature, and used NVivo software to organise data and perform thematic analysis to determine key themes.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies met our inclusion criteria. Three themes were identified: (1) trustworthiness (where and from whom participants obtained information regarding LARCs), (2) control (whether LARCs detract from personal autonomy) and (3) systems (how HCPs influenced LARC access). Misgivings about LARCs frequently arose from social networks and fears of surrendering control over fertility were prominent. HCPs perceived access issues and lack of familiarity or training as the main barriers to prescribing LARCs.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care plays a key role in improving access to LARC but barriers need to be addressed especially those involving misconception and misinformation. Access to LARC removal services are key to empower choice and prevent coercion. Facilitating trust within patient-centred contraceptive consult is essential.

Effect of Medical Fee Schedule Revisions on the Expansion of Nutritional Support Teams in Japan: An Interrupted Time-series Analysis

INTRODUCTION

In 2018, the fee schedule for nutrition support teams (NSTs) in Japanese hospitals was changed. The change was intended to encourage more hospitals to establish NSTs, and this study aims to investigate whether this change had the desired effect. Specifically, we will look at the proportion of hospitals with NSTs before and after the 2018 revision to see if there was a significant increase in the number of hospitals with NSTs.

METHODS

The study analyzed administrative data from 10 Japanese prefectures dating from June 2015 to September 2021 using an interrupted time-series design. The analysis focused on all acute care hospitals within these prefectures and measured the percentage of hospitals with NSTs. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on hospital size and functions. In April 2018, the intervention, a fee schedule revision, was implemented.

RESULTS

We analyzed 1,471 acute care hospitals. Immediately after the intervention, the percentage of hospitals with NSTs increased by 4.59% (95% CI = 3.92%, 5.26%) and by 0.66% (95% CI = 0.57%, 0.75%) quarterly thereafter. We observed a marked increase in NST formation among large-sized (20.9%), medium-sized (28.0%), and highly acute care hospitals (hospitals with emergency medical care centers and intensive care units, 22.3% and 23.6%, respectively). We also noted a moderate increase among hospitals with convalescent rehabilitation units (10.1%) and a modest increase among small-sized hospitals (6.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Relaxation of the NST fee requirement increased the proportion of hospitals with NSTs in Japan, especially among larger and highly acute care hospitals.

Physician Financial Incentives for Use of Outpatient Intravenous Antimicrobial Therapy: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis

BACKGROUND

In 2011, policymakers in British Columbia introduced a fee-for-service payment to incentivize infectious diseases physicians to supervise outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT). Whether this policy increased use of OPAT remains uncertain.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using population-based administrative data over a 14-year period (2004-2018). We focused on infections that required intravenous antimicrobials for ≥10 days (eg, osteomyelitis, joint infection, endocarditis) and used the monthly proportion of index hospitalizations with a length of stay shorter than the guideline-recommended "usual duration of intravenous antimicrobials" (LOS < UDIVA) as a surrogate for population-level OPAT use. We used interrupted time series analysis to determine whether policy introduction increased the proportion of hospitalizations with LOS < UDIVA.

RESULTS

We identified 18 513 eligible hospitalizations. In the pre-policy period, 82.3% of hospitalizations exhibited LOS < UDIVA. Introduction of the incentive was not associated with a change in the proportion of hospitalizations with LOS < UDIVA, suggesting that the policy intervention did not increase OPAT use (step change, -0.06%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.69% to 2.58%; P = .97 and slope change, -0.001% per month; 95% CI, -.056% to .055%; P = .98).

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of a financial incentive for physicians did not appear to increase OPAT use. Policymakers should consider modifying the incentive design or addressing organizational barriers to expanded OPAT use.

Acceptability and feasibility of a planned preconception weight loss intervention in women with long-acting reversible contraception: the Plan-it mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Women with overweight (a body mass index of ≥ 25 kg/m²) or obesity (a body mass index of ≥ 30 kg/m²) are at greater risk of experiencing complications during pregnancy and labour than women with a healthy weight. Women who remove their long-acting reversible contraception (i.e. coils or implants) are one of the few groups of people who contact services as part of their preparation for conception, creating an opportunity to offer a weight loss intervention.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to understand if routine NHS data captured the pathway from long-acting reversible contraception removal to pregnancy and included body mass index; to identify the suitable components of a preconception weight loss intervention; and to engage with key stakeholders to determine the acceptability and feasibility of asking women with overweight/obesity to delay the removal of their long-acting reversible contraception in order to take part in a preconception weight loss intervention.

DESIGN

This was a preparatory mixed-methods study, assessing the acceptability and feasibility of a potential intervention, using routine NHS data and purposefully collected qualitative data.

PARTICIPANTS

The NHS routine data included all women with a long-acting reversible contraception code. There were three groups of participants in the surveys and interviews: health-care practitioners who remove long-acting reversible contraception; weight management consultants; and women of reproductive age with experience of overweight/obesity and of using long-acting reversible contraception.

SETTING

UK-based health-care practitioners recruited at professional meetings; and weight management consultants and contraceptive users recruited via social media.

DATA SOURCES

Anonymised routine data from UK sexual health clinics and the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, including the Pregnancy Register; and online surveys and qualitative interviews with stakeholders.

RESULTS

The records of 2,632,871 women aged 16-48 years showed that 318,040 had at least one long-acting reversible contraception event, with 62% of records including a body mass index. Given the identified limitations of the routine NHS data sets, it would not be feasible to reliably identify women with overweight/obesity who request a long-acting reversible contraception removal with an intention to become pregnant. Online surveys were completed by 100 health-care practitioners, four weight management consultants and 243 contraceptive users. Ten health-care practitioners and 20 long-acting reversible contraception users completed qualitative interviews. A realist-informed approach generated a hypothesised programme theory. The combination of weight discussions and the delay of long-acting reversible contraception removal was unacceptable as an intervention to contraceptive users for ethical and practical reasons. However, a preconception health intervention incorporating weight loss could be acceptable, and one potential programme is outlined.

LIMITATIONS

There was very limited engagement with weight management consultants, and the sample of participating stakeholders may not be representative.

CONCLUSIONS

An intervention that asks women to delay long-acting reversible contraception removal to participate in a preconception weight loss intervention would be neither feasible nor acceptable. A preconception health programme, including weight management, would be welcomed but requires risk communication training of health-care practitioners.

FUTURE WORK

Work to improve routine data sets, increase awareness of the importance of preconception health and overcome health-care practitioner barriers to discussing weight as part of preconception care is a priority.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN14733020.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 1.

Use of Primary Care Data in Research and Pharmacovigilance: Eight Scenarios Where Prescription Data are Absent

The use of primary care databases has been integral in pharmacoepidemiological studies and pharmacovigilance. Primary care databases derive from electronic health records and offer a comprehensive description of aggregate patient data, from demography to medication history, and good sample sizes. Studies using these databases improve our understanding of prescribing characteristics and associated risk factors to facilitate better patient care, but there are limitations. We describe eight key scenarios where study data outcomes can be affected by absent prescriptions in UK primary care databases: (1) out-of-hours, urgent care and acute care prescriptions; (2) specialist-only prescriptions; (3) alternative community prescribing, such as pharmacy, family planning clinic or sexual health clinic medication prescriptions; (4) newly licensed medication prescriptions; (5) medications that do not require prescriptions; (6) hospital inpatient and outpatient prescriptions; (7) handwritten prescriptions; and (8) private pharmacy and private doctor prescriptions. The significance of each scenario is dependent on the type of medication under investigation, nature of the study and expected outcome measures. We recommend that all researchers using primary care databases be aware of the potential for missing prescribing data and be sensitive to how this can vary substantially between items, drug classes, patient groups and over time. Close liaison with practising primary care clinicians in the UK is often essential to ensure awareness of nuances in clinical 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.

Intrauterine device found in an ovarian tumor: A case report

RATIONALE

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are one of the most common and effective methods of contraception worldwide. Migration of an IUD to an extrauterine site is a rare complication. The aim of this study was to report an extremely rare case in which an IUD was found in an ovarian tumor.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 63-year-old Chinese woman presented with vaginal bleeding and lower abdominal pain during hospitalization due to pneumonia. Preoperative imaging showed bilateral cystic masses in the adnexal region, and ring hyperdensity was found in the right ovarian mass. Endometrial thickening and multiple uterine leiomyomas were found on ultrasonography. Hysteroscopy showed partial septate uterus and a small endometrial polyp.

DIAGNOSIS

Bilateral ovarian cystadenomas with perforation of the IUD into the right ovarian tumor were considered based on preoperative imaging and the patient's medical history. Furthermore, early endometrial carcinoma was suspected.

INTERVENTIONS

The patient underwent hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and omentectomy. A stainless steel ring IUD was confirmed within the right ovarian tumor during the operation.

OUTCOMES

The pathology results demonstrated bilateral ovarian serous cystadenofibromas with focal epithelial proliferation and endometrial atypical hyperplasia with malignant transformation. The patient has been followed up for 7 months, and there has been no recurrence at present.

LESSONS

The presence of an IUD within an ovarian tumor is extremely rare. This is the second reported case in the English literature describing an extrauterine IUD within an ovarian tumor. The correlation between ovarian cancer tumorigenesis and IUD translocation is unclear and requires further investigation.

Impact of a pay-for-performance scheme for long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) advice on contraceptive uptake and abortion in British primary care: An interrupted time series study

BACKGROUND

Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) is among the most effective contraceptive methods, but uptake remains low even in high-income settings. In 2009/2010, a target-based pay-for-performance (P4P) scheme in Britain was introduced for primary care physicians (PCPs) to offer advice about LARC methods to a specified proportion of women attending for contraceptive care to improve contraceptive choice. We examined the impact and equity of this scheme on LARC uptake and abortions.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We examined records of 3,281,667 women aged 13 to 54 years registered with a primary care clinic in Britain (England, Wales, and Scotland) using Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) from 2004/2005 to 2013/2014. We used interrupted time series (ITS) analysis to examine trends in annual LARC and non-LARC hormonal contraception (NLHC) uptake and abortion rates, stratified by age and deprivation groups, before and after the P4P was introduced in 2009/2010. Between 2004/2005 and 2013/2014, crude LARC uptake rates increased by 32.0% from 29.6 per 1,000 women to 39.0 per 1,000 women, compared with 18.0% decrease in NLHC uptake. LARC uptake among women of all ages increased immediately after the P4P with step change of 5.36 per 1,000 women (all values are per 1,000 women unless stated, 95% CI 5.26-5.45, p < 0.001). Women aged 20 to 24 years had the largest step change (8.40, 8.34-8.47, p < 0.001) and sustained trend increase (3.14, 3.08-3.19, p < 0.001) compared with other age groups. NLHC uptake fell in all women with a step change of -22.8 (-24.5 to -21.2, p < 0.001), largely due to fall in combined hormonal contraception (CHC; -15.0, -15.5 to -14.5, p < 0.001). Abortion rates in all women fell immediately after the P4P with a step change of -2.28 (-2.98 to -1.57, p = 0.002) and sustained decrease in trend of -0.88 (-1.12 to -0.63, p < 0.001). The largest falls occurred in women aged 13 to 19 years (step change -5.04, -7.56 to -2.51, p = 0.011), women aged 20 to 24 years (step change -4.52, -7.48 to -1.57, p = 0.030), and women from the most deprived group (step change -4.40, -6.89 to -1.91, p = 0.018). We estimate that by 2013/2014, the P4P scheme resulted in an additional 4.53 LARC prescriptions per 1,000 women (relative increase of 13.4%) more than would have been expected without the scheme. There was a concurrent absolute reduction of -5.31 abortions per 1,000 women, or -38.3% relative reduction. Despite universal coverage of healthcare, some women might have obtained contraception elsewhere or had abortion procedure that was not recorded on CPRD. Other policies aiming to increase LARC use or reduce unplanned pregnancies around the same time could also explain the findings.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we found that LARC uptake increased and abortions fell in the period after the P4P scheme in British primary care, with additional impact for young women aged 20-24 years and those from deprived backgrounds.

Changes in the prevalence and profile of users of contraception in Britain 2000-2010: evidence from two National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles

AIM

To describe prevalence and trends in contraceptive method use in Britain through a comparison of the second and third National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-2 and Natsal-3).

METHODS

Cross-sectional probability sample surveys. General population sample of women aged 16-44 years, resident in Britain, with ever-experience of vaginal sex and, for analysis by sociodemographic characteristics, vaginal sex in the last year. Main outcome measure was current contraceptive method use ('usual these days'), categorised by effectiveness.

RESULTS

Prevalence of current contraceptive use among women who had ever had vaginal sex declined between Natsal-2 and Natsal-3, 83.5% (95% CI 82.4 to 84.5) and 76.4% (95% CI 75.0 to 77.7), respectively. The condom and oral contraceptive pill remain the most commonly used methods. One in five women reported use of a most effective method. While no difference was found between surveys in use of most effective methods, a decline in sterilisation use was compensated by an increase in long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) use. Increased LARC use was particularly evident among under-25s compared with women aged 40-44 years (OR 11.35, 95% CI 3.23 to 39.87) and a decline was observed among those with two or more children relative to those with none (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies to improve access to LARC methods have been particularly successful in increasing uptake among young people in the first decade of the 21st century. Whether this trajectory is maintained given changing sociodemographic characteristics and more recent financial cuts to sexual health service provision will warrant investigation.

Pediatric Provider Education and Use of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception in Adolescents

INTRODUCTION

Pediatric primary care providers prescribe the majority of contraception to adolescents, but they often lack training in long-acting reversible contraception (LARC). Our objective was to assess whether a provider education initiative was associated with a change in LARC use for adolescents.

METHOD

Using electronic medical records, we examined LARC use for 7,331 women ages 15 to 21 years with an established primary care provider before and after a provider education initiative on LARC. We used an interrupted time series design to examine trends in LARC use related to the intervention.

RESULTS

Before the intervention, 3.4% to 3.8% of adolescents were using a LARC method, and LARC use was declining by 4 devices/10,000 adolescents per month (95% confidence interval = [-5, -2] per 10,000 adolescents). After the intervention, LARC use stabilized. The number of adolescents using a LARC method increased nonsignificantly at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after the intervention.

DISCUSSION

Education of pediatric primary care providers reversed a trend toward decreased use of long-acting reversible contraception.

Safety of intrauterine devices in MRI

Objectives

The paucity of safety information on intrauterine devices (IUD) for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations is clinically relevant. The aim of this study is to evaluate the MRI safety of clinically used IUDs composed of copper/gold and stainless steel at 1.5T and 3.0T.

Materials and methods

We assessed and compared the displacement force, torque effects, presence of imaging artifacts and heating of IUDs composed of copper/gold (western IUDs) and stainless steel (China) on 1.5 and 3.0T MRI systems.

Results

Gold/Copper IUDs can show small deflection angles of 7° ± 7° in the worst-case field gradient of 40T/m (equivalent to magnetic force of 0.5 mN), while the stainless steel IUD experienced significant magnetic force and deflection (Force > 7.5 N; deflection angle 90° ± 1°). Manual rotation and suspension method show no torque effects on gold/copper IUDs but high torque effects were observed by manual rotation on the stainless steel IUD. Heating measurements showed a temperature increase (rescaled to a wbSAR of 4 W/kg) of 1.4°C at 1.5T / 3.4°C at 3.0 T (stainless steel IUD), 3.2°C at 1.5 T / 3.8°C at 3 T (copper/gold IUD), 3.3°C at 1.5 T / 4.8°C at 3 T (copper 1), 3.8°C at 1.5 T / 4.8°C at 3 T (copper 2). The visible imaging artifacts of the copper and gold IUDs at 3 T MRI reach a diameter of 4 mm ± 1 mm, while the stainless steel IUD resulted in artifacts measuring 200mm ± 10 mm when using gradient echo pulse sequences.

Conclusions

Standard IUDs (copper/gold) can be considered as conditional for MR safety at 1.5 T and 3.0 T, demonstrating at wbSAR up to 4W/kg and a magnetic field gradient of up to 40T/m with minimal imaging artifacts. The stainless steel IUD, however, induces unacceptable artifacts and is potentially harmful to patients during MRI due to high magnetic dislocation forces and torque (MR unsafe).

Quality of Care in the United Kingdom after Removal of Financial Incentives

BACKGROUND

The benefits of pay-for-performance schemes in improving the quality of care remain uncertain. There is little information on the effect of removing incentives from existing pay-for-performance schemes.

METHODS

We conducted interrupted time-series analyses of electronic medical record (EMR) data from 2010 to 2017 for 12 quality-of-care indicators in the United Kingdom's Quality and Outcomes Framework for which financial incentives were removed in 2014 and 6 indicators for which incentives were maintained. We estimated the effects of removing incentives on changes in performance on quality-of-care measures.

RESULTS

Complete longitudinal data were available for 2819 English primary care practices with more than 20 million registered patients. There were immediate reductions in documented quality of care for all 12 indicators in the first year after the removal of financial incentives. Reductions were greatest for indicators related to health advice, with a reduction of 62.3 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -65.6 to -59.0) in EMR documentation of lifestyle counseling for patients with hypertension. Changes were smaller for indicators involving clinical actions that automatically update the EMR, such as laboratory testing, with a reduction of 10.7 percentage points (95% CI, -13.6 to -7.8) in control of cholesterol in patients with coronary heart disease and 12.1 percentage points (95% CI, -13.6 to -10.6) for thyroid-function testing in patients with hypothyroidism. There was little change in performance on the 6 quality measures for which incentives were maintained.

CONCLUSIONS

Removal of financial incentives was associated with an immediate decline in performance on quality measures. In part, the decline probably reflected changes in EMR documentation, but declines on measures involving laboratory testing suggest that incentive removal also changed the care delivered.

"I think maybe 10 years seems a bit long." Beliefs and attitudes of women who had never used intrauterine contraception

AIM

To explore, in a general practice setting, the concerns, beliefs and attitudes about intrauterine contraception (IUC) reported by women, who had never used the methods.

METHODS

We used a sequential mixed-method (QUAL/quant) approach. A pragmatic, self-selecting sample of 30 women, aged 18-46 years, who had never used IUC), was recruited through seven general practices in South East England. Themes arising from qualitative interviews were used to construct a quantitative survey, completed by a pragmatic sample of 1195 women, aged 18-49 years, attending 32 general practices in the same region, between February and August 2015.

RESULTS

Qualitative themes were concerns about the long-acting nature of IUC, concerns about body boundaries, and informal knowledge of IUC, especially 'friend of a friend' stories. Women were not sure if the devices can be removed before their full 5- or 10-year duration of use, and felt that these timeframes did not fit with their reproductive intentions. Quantitative survey data showed that the most commonly endorsed concerns among never-users were painful fitting (55.8%), unpleasant removal of the device (60.1%), and concern about having a device 'inside me' (60.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

To facilitate fully informed contraceptive choice, information provided to women considering IUC should be tailored to more fully address the concerns expressed by never-users, particularly around the details of insertion and removal, and concerns about the adverse, long-term effects of the device. Women need to be reassured that IUC can be removed and fertility restored at any time following insertion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial registration NIHR CRN portfolio; 15912.

Where do women and men in Britain obtain contraception? Findings from the third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3)

INTRODUCTION

To estimate the prevalence of use of different sources of contraceptive supplies in Britain and its variation by key demographic and behavioural characteristics.

METHODS

Cross-sectional probability sample survey of women and men aged 16-74 years, resident in Britain, interviewed between 2010 and 2012. Analyses reported here were of 4571 women and 3142 men aged 16-44 years who reported having vaginal sex in the past year. Those relying exclusively on sterilisation (including hysterectomy) were excluded. Sources of contraceptive supplies were categorised as: general practice, community clinic, retail and other. Prevalence of use of these sources was estimated, and associated factors examined.

RESULTS

Some 87.0% of women and 73.8% of men accessed at least one source of contraceptive supplies in the previous year. Most women (59.1%) used general practice and most men (54.6%) used retail outlets. Community clinics were less commonly used, by 23.0% of women and 21.3% of men, but these users were younger and at greater sexual health risk. These associations were also observed among the 27.3% of women and 30.6% of men who used more than one source category (general practice, community clinic or retail) for contraceptive supplies.

CONCLUSIONS

People in Britain use a variety of sources to obtain contraceptive supplies and some sources are more commonly used by those more vulnerable to poorer sexual health. Our findings suggest that national policy changes to increase access to contraceptive methods have had an effect on the diversity of services used.

The relationship between area deprivation and prescription of long-acting reversible contraception in women of reproductive age in Lothian, Scotland, UK

Background

Reducing unplanned pregnancy in Scotland is a key government objective. Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) is a cost-effective way to reduce unintended pregnancy. Abortion and teenage pregnancy rates are highest in the most deprived areas. One possible explanation could be contraceptive prescribing inequality. This study examined the relationship between area deprivation measured by the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation and LARC prescription.

Methods

Using Scottish electronic prescribing data from primary care and sexual and reproductive health clinics, this study analysed female Lothian residents with a valid postcode aged 16–49 years who received a contraceptive prescription from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2014. Prescription of LARC (intrauterine, implant or injectable contraceptive) compared with non-LARC (oral pill, patch, ring or diaphragm) was examined. Logistic regression was performed adjusting for age group and prescription location.

Results

A total of 90 150 women were included; 21.1% of prescriptions were LARC and 15.3% vLARC (intrauterine method or implant). Women residing in the most deprived quintile (Q1) and prescribed contraception received a significantly higher proportion of LARC than quintiles 2–5 (Q2–5). Odds ratios compared with Q1 were: Q2 0.86, Q3 0.77, Q4 0.59 and Q5 0.51. Women in quintile 1 were also significantly more likely to receive vLARC than quintiles 2–5.

Conclusion

Women in the most deprived quintile in Lothian who are prescribed contraception are significantly more likely to receive LARC and vLARC compared with women in less deprived quintiles.

Current barriers and potential strategies to increase the use of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) to reduce the rate of unintended pregnancies in Australia: An expert roundtable discussion

BACKGROUND

Australia's abortion rates are among the highest in the developed world. Efficacy of the most commonly used form of contraception (oral contraceptives and condoms) relies on regular user compliance. Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) virtually eradicates contraceptive failure as it is not user-dependent; however, its uptake has been low.

AIM

To provide an overview of barriers to LARC use in Australia and potential strategies to overcome these barriers.

METHOD

A roundtable of Australian experts was convened to share clinical perspectives and to explore the barriers and potential strategies to increase LARC use.

RESULTS

Three broad barriers to LARC uptake were identified. (i) A paucity of Australian research exists that impedes closure of evidence gaps regarding contraceptive prescription and use. Systematic data collection is required. (ii) Within primary care, lack of familiarity with LARC and misperceptions about its use, lack of access to general practitioners (GPs) trained in LARC insertion/removal and affordability impede LARC uptake. Potential strategies to encourage LARC use include, GP education to promote informed choice by women, training in LARC insertions/removals, effective funding models for nurses to perform LARC insertions/removals, and rapid referral pathways. (iii) At the health system level, primary care incentives to provide LARC to women and health economic analyses to inform government policy changes are required.

CONCLUSIONS

Although LARC decreases unintended pregnancies by eliminating user compliance issues, its uptake is low in Australia. Strategies that promote LARC uptake by targeting specific barriers may effectively reduce Australia's high unintended pregnancy rate.

Payment methods for outpatient care facilities

BACKGROUND

Outpatient care facilities provide a variety of basic healthcare services to individuals who do not require hospitalisation or institutionalisation, and are usually the patient's first contact. The provision of outpatient care contributes to immediate and large gains in health status, and a large portion of total health expenditure goes to outpatient healthcare services. Payment method is one of the most important incentive methods applied by purchasers to guide the performance of outpatient care providers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of different payment methods on the performance of outpatient care facilities and to analyse the differences in impact of payment methods in different settings.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), 2016, Issue 3, part of the Cochrane Library (searched 8 March 2016); MEDLINE, OvidSP (searched 8 March 2016); Embase, OvidSP (searched 24 April 2014); PubMed (NCBI) (searched 8 March 2016); Dissertations and Theses Database, ProQuest (searched 8 March 2016); Conference Proceedings Citation Index (ISI Web of Science) (searched 8 March 2016); IDEAS (searched 8 March 2016); EconLit, ProQuest (searched 8 March 2016); POPLINE, K4Health (searched 8 March 2016); China National Knowledge Infrastructure (searched 8 March 2016); Chinese Medicine Premier (searched 8 March 2016); OpenGrey (searched 8 March 2016); ClinicalTrials.gov, US National Institutes of Health (NIH) (searched 8 March 2016); World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (searched 8 March 2016); and the website of the World Bank (searched 8 March 2016).In addition, we searched the reference lists of included studies and carried out a citation search for the included studies via ISI Web of Science to find other potentially relevant studies. We also contacted authors of the main included studies regarding any further published or unpublished work.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, and repeated measures studies that compared different payment methods for outpatient health facilities. We defined outpatient care facilities in this review as facilities that provide health services to individuals who do not require hospitalisation or institutionalisation. We only included methods used to transfer funds from the purchaser of healthcare services to health facilities (including groups of individual professionals). These include global budgets, line-item budgets, capitation, fee-for-service (fixed and unconstrained), pay for performance, and mixed payment. The primary outcomes were service provision outcomes, patient outcomes, healthcare provider outcomes, costs for providers, and any adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We conducted a structured synthesis. We first categorised the comparisons and outcomes and then described the effects of different types of payment methods on different categories of outcomes. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis within a study if a study included more than one indicator in the same category of outcomes. We used a random-effects model for meta-analysis across studies. If the data for meta-analysis were not available in some studies, we calculated the median and interquartile range. We reported the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the relative change for continuous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 studies from Afghanistan, Burundi, China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Tanzania, the United Kingdom, and the United States of health facilities providing primary health care and mental health care. There were three kinds of payment comparisons. 1) Pay for performance (P4P) combined with some existing payment method (capitation or different kinds of input-based payment) compared to the existing payment methodWe included 18 studies in this comparison, however we did not include five studies in the effects analysis due to high risk of bias. From the 13 studies, we found that the extra P4P incentives probably slightly improved the health professionals' use of some tests and treatments (adjusted RR median = 1.095, range 1.01 to 1.17; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably led to little or no difference in adherence to quality assurance criteria (adjusted percentage change median = -1.345%, range -8.49% to 5.8%; moderate-certainty evidence). We also found that P4P incentives may have led to little or no difference in patients' utilisation of health services (adjusted RR median = 1.01, range 0.96 to 1.15; low-certainty evidence) and may have led to little or no difference in the control of blood pressure or cholesterol (adjusted RR = 1.01, range 0.98 to 1.04; low-certainty evidence). 2) Capitation combined with P4P compared to fee-for-service (FFS)One study found that compared with FFS, a capitated budget combined with payment based on providers' performance on antibiotic prescriptions and patient satisfaction probably slightly reduced antibiotic prescriptions in primary health facilities (adjusted RR 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 0.96; moderate-certainty evidence). 3) Capitation compared to FFSTwo studies compared capitation to FFS in mental health centres in the United States. Based on these studies, the effects of capitation compared to FFS on the utilisation and costs of services were uncertain (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review found that if policymakers intend to apply P4P incentives to pay health facilities providing outpatient services, this intervention will probably lead to a slight improvement in health professionals' use of tests or treatments, particularly for chronic diseases. However, it may lead to little or no improvement in patients' utilisation of health services or health outcomes. When considering using P4P to improve the performance of health facilities, policymakers should carefully consider each component of their P4P design, including the choice of performance measures, the performance target, payment frequency, if there will be additional funding, whether the payment level is sufficient to change the behaviours of health providers, and whether the payment to facilities will be allocated to individual professionals. Unfortunately, the studies included in this review did not help to inform those considerations.Well-designed comparisons of different payment methods for outpatient health facilities in low- and middle-income countries and studies directly comparing different designs (e.g. different payment levels) of the same payment method (e.g. P4P or FFS) are needed.

Financial Incentives to Encourage Value-Based Health Care

This article reviews the literature on the use of financial incentives to improve the provision of value-based health care. Eighty studies of 44 schemes from 10 countries were reviewed. The proportion of positive and statistically significant outcomes was close to .5. Stronger study designs were associated with a lower proportion of positive effects. There were no differences between studies conducted in the United States compared with other countries; between schemes that targeted hospitals or primary care; or between schemes combining pay for performance with rewards for reducing costs, relative to pay for performance schemes alone. Paying for performance improvement is less likely to be effective. Allowing payments to be used for specific purposes, such as quality improvement, had a higher likelihood of a positive effect, compared with using funding for physician income. Finally, the size of incentive payments relative to revenue was not associated with the proportion of positive outcomes.

Validity of prescribing indicators for assessing quality of antibiotic use in Australian general practice

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the validity of a set of European quality indicators for assessing antimicrobial prescribing in Australian General Practice.

METHODS

A modified UCLA/RAND appropriateness method was used to assess the validity of 30 antimicrobial prescribing indicators. An expert panel of 12 general practitioners scored the validity of each indicator for measuring quality in Australian general practice. Four quality domains were considered: monitoring antibiotic resistance, benefit to individual patients, value for money and value to policymakers. Panel members were also asked to comment on the relevance to the Australian context and proposed benchmarks for each indicator.

KEY FINDINGS

All panel members were in agreement regarding the validity of each indicator in each of the specified domains with exception of the indicator assessing the use of systemic antibiotics for pneumonia. The majority of the indicators and their associated benchmarks were considered valid for assessing quality in Australian General Practice, however, there were differences regarding the quality domain that each indicator was considered valid for. Monitoring quality considering individual patient benefit was the most problematic domain with respect to validity.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the validity of 30 European indicators for assessing quality of antimicrobial prescribing in general practice in a non-European setting and provides guidance regarding acceptable benchmarks for the indicators. With international concerns regarding misuse of antibiotics and global interest in prescribing quality, valid evidence-based antimicrobial prescribing indicators and associated benchmarks are an essential tool for assessing prescribing quality.

Implementation Processes and Pay for Performance in Healthcare: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade, various pay-for-performance (P4P) programs have been implemented to improve quality in health systems, including the VHA. P4P programs are complex, and their effects may vary by design, context, and other implementation processes. We conducted a systematic review and key informant (KI) interviews to better understand the implementation factors that modify the effectiveness of P4P.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL through April 2014, and reviewed reference lists. We included trials and observational studies of P4P implementation. Two investigators abstracted data and assessed study quality. We interviewed P4P researchers to gain further insight.

RESULTS

Among 1363 titles and abstracts, we selected 509 for full-text review, and included 41 primary studies. Of these 41 studies, 33 examined P4P programs in ambulatory settings, 7 targeted hospitals, and 1 study applied to nursing homes. Related to implementation, 13 studies examined program design, 8 examined implementation processes, 6 the outer setting, 18 the inner setting, and 5 provider characteristics. Results suggest the importance of considering underlying payment models and using statistically stringent methods of composite measure development, and ensuring that high-quality care will be maintained after incentive removal. We found no conclusive evidence that provider or practice characteristics relate to P4P effectiveness. Interviews with 14 KIs supported limited evidence that effective P4P program measures should be aligned with organizational goals, that incentive structures should be carefully considered, and that factors such as a strong infrastructure and public reporting may have a large influence.

DISCUSSION

There is limited evidence from which to draw firm conclusions related to P4P implementation. Findings from studies and KI interviews suggest that P4P programs should undergo regular evaluation and should target areas of poor performance. Additionally, measures and incentives should align with organizational priorities, and programs should allow for changes over time in response to data and provider input.

Postabortion Initiation of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception by Adolescent and Nulliparous Women in New Zealand

PURPOSE

To describe changes in receipt of immediate postabortion long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) by adolescent and nulliparous women in New Zealand.

METHODS

Nationally collected data on immediate postabortion receipt of an intrauterine method (intrauterine device [IUD]/intrauterine system [IUS]) or contraceptive implant were analyzed to describe proportions and demographic characteristics of women receiving LARC between 2007 and 2013. Changes in uptake over time were presented for adolescent, nulliparous, and parous women.

RESULTS

Postabortion LARC uptake increased between 2007 and 2013, rising from 7.9% to 42.7% for adolescents and from 8.8% to 36.9% for nulliparous women. The increase was highest among nulliparous adolescents with a seven-fold increase in LARC uptake between 2007 and 2013. Adolescents had a five-fold increase and nulliparous women (of all ages) a four-fold increase. In 2013, IUD/IUS use was lowest among adolescents (22.4%) and increased with increasing age (43% by ages 40+ years), whereas implant use was highest among adolescents (20.3%) and decreased with increasing age (to 4.6% by age 40+ years). Nulliparous women had the lowest use of both IUD/IUS and implants in 2013, with 24.6% receiving an intrauterine method (compared with 43.2% for para 3+), and 12.3% an implant (compared with 17.5% for para 3+).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite an overall trend toward increased uptake of postabortion LARC by adolescent and nulliparous women, uptake in these groups still lags behind that of parous and older women. Reasons for differential uptake need to be explored and addressed if necessary to ensure all women have equitable access to the most effective methods of contraception.

A Qualitative Study of Prescription Contraception Use: The Perspectives of Users, General Practitioners and Pharmacists

BACKGROUND

The oral contraceptive pill (OCP) remains the most popular form of prescription contraception in many countries, despite adherence difficulties for many. Uptake of long acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), which are less reliant on user adherence, remains low. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of, and attitudes towards, prescription contraception amongst samples of contraception users, general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists.

METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS

We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 18 contraception users, 18 GPs and 9 pharmacists. The study took place in Galway, Republic of Ireland between June and September 2014. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Overall, contraception users were more familiar with the OCP, and all the women interviewed began their prescription contraception journey using this method. All participants identified episodes of poor adherence throughout the reproductive life course. The identified barriers for use of LARCs were lack of information, misconceptions, lack of access and high cost. In contrast, GPs believed that adherence to the OCP was good and stated they were more likely to prescribe the OCP than other methods, as they were most familiar with this option. Barriers to prescribing LARCSs were time, cost to practice, training and deskilling. Pharmacists also believed that adherence to the OCP was generally good and that their role was limited to dispensing medication and providing information when asked.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

There are contrasting perspectives between contraception service providers and contraceptive users. Training for healthcare providers is required to support informed contraceptive choice and adherence. It is necessary to address the practice barriers of cost and lack of time, to promote better communication around adherence issues and prescription contraception options. There is a need for more easily-accessible public health information to promote awareness on all methods of prescription contraception.