1
|
Slawomirski L, Hensher M, Campbell J, deGraaff B. Pay-for-performance and patient safety in acute care: A systematic review. Health Policy 2024; 143:105051. [PMID: 38547664 DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.105051] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/17/2023] [Revised: 03/13/2024] [Accepted: 03/17/2024] [Indexed: 04/20/2024]
Abstract
Pay-for-performance (p4p) has been tried in all healthcare settings to address ongoing deficiencies in the quality and outcomes of care. The evidence for the effect of these policies has been inconclusive, especially in acute care. This systematic review focused on patient safety p4p in the hospital setting. Using the PRISMA guidelines, we searched five biomedical databases for quantitative studies using at least one outcome metric from database inception to March 2023, supplemented by reference tracking and internet searches. We identified 6,122 potential titles of which 53 were included: 39 original investigations, eight literature reviews and six grey literature reports. Only five system-wide p4p policies have been implemented, and the quality of evidence was low overall. Just over half of the studies (52 %) included failed to observe improvement in outcomes, with positive findings heavily skewed towards poor quality evaluations. The exception was the Fragility Hip Fracture Best Practice Tariff (BPT) in England, where sustained improvement was observed across various evaluations. All policies had a miniscule impact on total hospital revenue. Our findings underscore the importance of simple and transparent design, involvement of the clinical community, explicit links to other quality improvement initiatives, and gradual implementation of p4p initatives. We also propose a research agenda to lift the quality of evidence in this field.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luke Slawomirski
- Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, 17 Liverpool St., Hobart 7000, Tasmania, Australia.
| | - Martin Hensher
- Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, 17 Liverpool St., Hobart 7000, Tasmania, Australia
| | - Julie Campbell
- Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, 17 Liverpool St., Hobart 7000, Tasmania, Australia
| | - Barbara deGraaff
- Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, 17 Liverpool St., Hobart 7000, Tasmania, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Hayes H, Stokes J, Sutton M, Meacock R. How do hospitals respond to payment unbundling for diagnostic imaging of suspected cancer patients? HEALTH ECONOMICS 2024; 33:823-843. [PMID: 38233916 DOI: 10.1002/hec.4804] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2023] [Revised: 01/05/2024] [Accepted: 01/08/2024] [Indexed: 01/19/2024]
Abstract
Payments for some diagnostic scans undertaken in outpatient settings were unbundled from Diagnosis Related Group based payments in England in April 2013 to address under-provision. Unbundled scans attracted additional payments of between £45 and £748 directly following the reform. We examined the effect on utilization of these scans for patients with suspected cancer. We also explored whether any detected effects represented real increases in use of scans or better coding of activity. We applied difference-in-differences regression to patient-level data from Hospital Episodes Statistics for 180 NHS hospital Trusts in England, between April 2010 and March 2018. We also explored heterogeneity in recorded use of scans before and after the unbundling at hospital Trust-level. Use of scans increased by 0.137 scans per patient following unbundling, a 134% relative increase. This increased annual national provider payments by £79.2 million. Over 15% of scans recorded after the unbundling were at providers that previously recorded no scans, suggesting some of the observed increase in activity reflected previous under-coding. Hospitals recorded substantial increases in diagnostic imaging for suspected cancer in response to payment unbundling. Results suggest that the reform also encouraged improvements in recording, so the real increase in testing is likely lower than detected.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helen Hayes
- Office of Health Economics (OHE), London, UK
- Health Organisation, Policy and Economics (HOPE), Centre for Primary Care & Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Jonathan Stokes
- Health Organisation, Policy and Economics (HOPE), Centre for Primary Care & Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- MRC/CSO Social & Public Health Sciences Unit, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Matt Sutton
- Health Organisation, Policy and Economics (HOPE), Centre for Primary Care & Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Rachel Meacock
- Health Organisation, Policy and Economics (HOPE), Centre for Primary Care & Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Tayfun Şahiner İ, Esen E, Deniz Uçar A, Serdar Karaca A, Çınar Yastı A. Pay for performance system in Turkey and the world; a global overview. Turk J Surg 2022; 38:46-54. [DOI: 10.47717/turkjsurg.2022.5439] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/09/2021] [Accepted: 11/08/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the pay for performance system applied nationally in Turkey and in other countries around the world and to reveal the effects of the system applied in our country on the general surgery.
Material and Methods: Current literature and countries’ programs on the implementation of the pay for performance system were recorded. The results of the Turkish Surgical Association’s performance and Healthcare Implementation Communique (HIC) commission studies were evaluated in light of the literature.
Results: Many countries have implemented performance systems on a limited scale to improve quality, speed up the diagnosis, treatment, and control of certain diseases, and they have generally applied it as a financial promotion by receiving the support of health insurance companies and nongovernmental organizations. It turns out that surgeons in our country feel that they are being wronged because of the injustice in the current system because the property of their works is not appreciated and they cannot get the reward for the work they do. This is also the reason for the reluctance of medical school graduates to choose general surgery.
Conclusion: Authorities should pay attention to the opinions of associations and experts in the related field when creating lists of interventional procedures related to surgery. Equal pay should be given to equal work nationally, and surgeons should be encouraged by incentives to perform detailed, qualified surgeries. There is a possibility that the staff positions opened for general surgery, as well as, all surgical branches will remain empty in the near future.
Collapse
|
4
|
Huang K, Lin M, Kuo T, Chen C, Lin C, Chou Y, Chao T, Pang Y, Kao H, Huang R, Lin S, Chang S, Yang P. Humanized COVID-19 decoy antibody effectively blocks viral entry and prevents SARS-CoV-2 infection. EMBO Mol Med 2021; 13:e12828. [PMID: 33159417 PMCID: PMC7799362 DOI: 10.15252/emmm.202012828] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/27/2020] [Revised: 11/03/2020] [Accepted: 11/05/2020] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
To circumvent the devastating pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, a humanized decoy antibody (ACE2-Fc fusion protein) was designed to target the interaction between viral spike protein and its cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). First, we demonstrated that ACE2-Fc could specifically abrogate virus replication by blocking the entry of SARS-CoV-2 spike-expressing pseudotyped virus into both ACE2-expressing lung cells and lung organoids. The impairment of viral entry was not affected by virus variants, since efficient inhibition was also observed in six SARS-CoV-2 clinical strains, including the D614G variants which have been shown to exhibit increased infectivity. The preservation of peptidase activity also enables ACE2-Fc to reduce the angiotensin II-mediated cytokine cascade. Furthermore, this Fc domain of ACE2-Fc was shown to activate NK cell degranulation after co-incubation with Spike-expressing H1975 cells. These promising characteristics potentiate the therapeutic prospects of ACE2-Fc as an effective treatment for COVID-19.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kuo‐Yen Huang
- Institute of Biomedical SciencesAcademia SinicaTaipeiTaiwan
| | - Ming‐Shiu Lin
- Institute of Biomedical SciencesAcademia SinicaTaipeiTaiwan
| | - Ting‐Chun Kuo
- Department of Internal MedicineNational Taiwan University Hospital and National Taiwan University College of MedicineTaipeiTaiwan
| | - Ci‐Ling Chen
- Institute of Biomedical SciencesAcademia SinicaTaipeiTaiwan
| | - Chung‐Chih Lin
- Institute of Biomedical SciencesAcademia SinicaTaipeiTaiwan
| | - Yu‐Chi Chou
- Biomedical Translation Research Center (BioTReC)Academia SinicaTaipeiTaiwan
| | - Tai‐Ling Chao
- Department of Clinical Laboratory Sciences and Medical BiotechnologyNational Taiwan University College of MedicineTaipeiTaiwan
| | - Yu‐Hao Pang
- Department of Clinical Laboratory Sciences and Medical BiotechnologyNational Taiwan University College of MedicineTaipeiTaiwan
| | - Han‐Chieh Kao
- Department of Clinical Laboratory Sciences and Medical BiotechnologyNational Taiwan University College of MedicineTaipeiTaiwan
| | - Rih‐Sheng Huang
- Institute of Biological ChemistryAcademia SinicaTaipeiTaiwan
| | - Steven Lin
- Institute of Biological ChemistryAcademia SinicaTaipeiTaiwan
- Institute of Biochemical SciencesNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
| | - Sui‐Yuan Chang
- Department of Clinical Laboratory Sciences and Medical BiotechnologyNational Taiwan University College of MedicineTaipeiTaiwan
- Department of Laboratory MedicineNational Taiwan University HospitalTaipeiTaiwan
| | - Pan‐Chyr Yang
- Institute of Biomedical SciencesAcademia SinicaTaipeiTaiwan
- Department of Internal MedicineNational Taiwan University Hospital and National Taiwan University College of MedicineTaipeiTaiwan
- Genomics Research CenterAcademia SinicaTaipeiTaiwan
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Haviari S, Chollet F, Polazzi S, Payet C, Beauveil A, Colin C, Duclos A. Effect of data validation audit on hospital mortality ranking and pay for performance. BMJ Qual Saf 2018; 28:459-467. [DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008039] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2018] [Revised: 06/27/2018] [Accepted: 10/05/2018] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
BackgroundQuality improvement and epidemiology studies often rely on database codes to measure performance or impact of adjusted risk factors, but how validity issues can bias those estimates is seldom quantified.ObjectivesTo evaluate whether and how much interhospital administrative coding variations influence a typical performance measure (adjusted mortality) and potential incentives based on it.DesignNational cross-sectional study comparing hospital mortality ranking and simulated pay-for-performance incentives before/after recoding discharge abstracts using medical records.SettingTwenty-four public and private hospitals located in FranceParticipantsAll inpatient stays from the 78 deadliest diagnosis-related groups over 1 year.InterventionsElixhauser and Charlson comorbidities were derived, and mortality ratios were computed for each hospital. Thirty random stays per hospital were then recoded by two central reviewers and used in a Bayesian hierarchical model to estimate hospital-specific and comorbidity-specific predictive values. Simulations then estimated shifts in adjusted mortality and proportion of incentives that would be unfairly distributed by a typical pay-for-performance programme in this situation.Main outcome measuresPositive and negative predictive values of routine coding of comorbidities in hospital databases, variations in hospitals’ mortality league table and proportion of unfair incentives.ResultsA total of 70 402 hospital discharge abstracts were analysed, of which 715 were recoded from full medical records. Hospital comorbidity-level positive predictive values ranged from 64.4% to 96.4% and negative ones from 88.0% to 99.9%. Using Elixhauser comorbidities for adjustment, 70.3% of hospitals changed position in the mortality league table after correction, which added up to a mean 6.5% (SD 3.6) of a total pay-for-performance budget being allocated to the wrong hospitals. Using Charlson, 61.5% of hospitals changed position, with 7.3% (SD 4.0) budget misallocation.ConclusionsVariations in administrative data coding can bias mortality comparisons and budget allocation across hospitals. Such heterogeneity in data validity may be corrected using a centralised coding strategy from a random sample of observations.
Collapse
|
6
|
Mandavia R, Mehta N, Schilder A, Mossialos E. Effectiveness of UK provider financial incentives on quality of care: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract 2017; 67:e800-e815. [PMID: 28993305 PMCID: PMC5647924 DOI: 10.3399/bjgp17x693149] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/24/2016] [Accepted: 03/17/2017] [Indexed: 10/31/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
7
|
Milstein R, Schreyoegg J. Pay for performance in the inpatient sector: A review of 34 P4P programs in 14 OECD countries. Health Policy 2016; 120:1125-1140. [DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.08.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 74] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/23/2016] [Revised: 08/21/2016] [Accepted: 08/25/2016] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
8
|
Meacock R, Sutton M, Kristensen SR, Harrison M. Using Survival Analysis to Improve Estimates of Life Year Gains in Policy Evaluations. Med Decis Making 2016; 37:415-426. [DOI: 10.1177/0272989x16654444] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
Background. Policy evaluations taking a lifetime horizon have converted estimated changes in short-term mortality to expected life year gains using general population life expectancy. However, the life expectancy of the affected patients may differ from the general population. In trials, survival models are commonly used to extrapolate life year gains. The objective was to demonstrate the feasibility and materiality of using parametric survival models to extrapolate future survival in health care policy evaluations. Methods. We used our previous cost-effectiveness analysis of a pay-for-performance program as a motivating example. We first used the cohort of patients admitted prior to the program to compare 3 methods for estimating remaining life expectancy. We then used a difference-in-differences framework to estimate the life year gains associated with the program using general population life expectancy and survival models. Patient-level data from Hospital Episode Statistics was utilized for patients admitted to hospitals in England for pneumonia between 1 April 2007 and 31 March 2008 and between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2010, and linked to death records for the period from 1 April 2007 to 31 March 2011. Results. In our cohort of patients, using parametric survival models rather than general population life expectancy figures reduced the estimated mean life years remaining by 30% (9.19 v. 13.15 years, respectively). However, the estimated mean life year gains associated with the program are larger using survival models (0.380 years) compared to using general population life expectancy (0.154 years). Conclusions. Using general population life expectancy to estimate the impact of health care policies can overestimate life expectancy but underestimate the impact of policies on life year gains. Using a longer follow-up period improved the accuracy of estimated survival and program impact considerably.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel Meacock
- University of Manchester, Manchester, UK (RM, MS, SRK)
- Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada (MH)
- Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, Vancouver, BC, Canada (MH)
| | - Matt Sutton
- University of Manchester, Manchester, UK (RM, MS, SRK)
- Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada (MH)
- Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, Vancouver, BC, Canada (MH)
| | - Søren Rud Kristensen
- University of Manchester, Manchester, UK (RM, MS, SRK)
- Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada (MH)
- Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, Vancouver, BC, Canada (MH)
| | - Mark Harrison
- University of Manchester, Manchester, UK (RM, MS, SRK)
- Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada (MH)
- Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, Vancouver, BC, Canada (MH)
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Qureshi N, Weng S, Hex N. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in the development of indicators to support incentive-based behaviour in primary care in England. J Health Serv Res Policy 2016; 21:263-71. [PMID: 27207081 DOI: 10.1177/1355819616650912] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
In England, general practitioners are incentivized through a national pay-for-performance scheme to adopt evidence-based quality improvement initiatives using a portfolio of Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) indicators. We describe the development of the methods used to assess the cost-effectiveness of these pay-for-performance indicators and how they have contributed to the development of new indicators. Prior to analysis of new potential indicators, an economic subgroup of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Indicator Advisory Committee is formed to assess evidence on the cost-effectiveness of potential indicators in terms of the health benefits gained, compared to the cost of the intervention and the cost of the incentive. The expert subgroup is convened to reach consensus on the amounts that could potentially be paid to general practices for achieving new indicators. Indicators are also piloted in selected general practices and evidence gathered about their practical implementation. The methods used to assess economic viability of new pilot indicators represent a pragmatic and effective way of providing information to inform recommendations. Current policy to reduce QOF funding could shift the focus from national (QOF) to local schemes, with economic appraisal remaining central.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nadeem Qureshi
- Clinical Professor of Primary Care, Division of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, UK
| | - Stephen Weng
- NIHR Research Fellow (School for Primary Care Research), Division of Primary Care, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, UK
| | - Nick Hex
- Associate Director of York Health Economics Consortium Ltd, University of York, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Raine R, Fitzpatrick R, Barratt H, Bevan G, Black N, Boaden R, Bower P, Campbell M, Denis JL, Devers K, Dixon-Woods M, Fallowfield L, Forder J, Foy R, Freemantle N, Fulop NJ, Gibbons E, Gillies C, Goulding L, Grieve R, Grimshaw J, Howarth E, Lilford RJ, McDonald R, Moore G, Moore L, Newhouse R, O’Cathain A, Or Z, Papoutsi C, Prady S, Rycroft-Malone J, Sekhon J, Turner S, Watson SI, Zwarenstein M. Challenges, solutions and future directions in the evaluation of service innovations in health care and public health. HEALTH SERVICES AND DELIVERY RESEARCH 2016. [DOI: 10.3310/hsdr04160] [Citation(s) in RCA: 62] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
HeadlineEvaluating service innovations in health care and public health requires flexibility, collaboration and pragmatism; this collection identifies robust, innovative and mixed methods to inform such evaluations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rosalind Raine
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK
| | - Ray Fitzpatrick
- Health Services Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Helen Barratt
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) North Thames, Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK
| | - Gywn Bevan
- Department of Management, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK
| | - Nick Black
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Ruth Boaden
- Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) Greater Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Peter Bower
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Marion Campbell
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Jean-Louis Denis
- Canada Research Chair in Governance and Transformation of Health Organizations and Systems, École Nationale d’Administration Publique, Ville de Québec, QC, Canada
| | - Kelly Devers
- Health Policy Centre, Urban Institute, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Mary Dixon-Woods
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Lesley Fallowfield
- Sussex Health Outcomes Research and Education in Cancer (SHORE-C), University of Sussex, Brighton, UK
| | - Julien Forder
- School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
| | - Robbie Foy
- Academic Unit of Primary Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Nick Freemantle
- Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Naomi J Fulop
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK
| | - Elizabeth Gibbons
- Health Services Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Clare Gillies
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) East Midlands and NIHR Research Design Service East Midlands, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Lucy Goulding
- King’s Improvement Science, Centre for Implementation Science, King’s College London, London, UK
| | - Richard Grieve
- Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Jeremy Grimshaw
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Emma Howarth
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) East of England, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Ruth McDonald
- Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Graham Moore
- School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Laurence Moore
- Medical Research Council (MRC)/Chief Scientist Office (CSO) Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Robin Newhouse
- Indiana University School of Nursing, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | - Alicia O’Cathain
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Zeynep Or
- Institut de Recherche et Documentation en Économie de la Santé, Paris, France
| | - Chrysanthi Papoutsi
- Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) Northwest London, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | | | | | - Jasjeet Sekhon
- Department of Political Science and Statistics, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA
| | - Simon Turner
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK
| | | | - Merrick Zwarenstein
- Centre for Studies in Family Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, Western University, London, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|