Stewardship of primary care physicians to contain cost in health care: an international cross-sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Physician stewardship towards cost control is potentially important in enhancing the financial sustainability of health care systems. Objective: Aim of this study was to identify the level of stewardship of cost containment of primary care physicians (PCPs) and to assess the associations between stewardship and characteristics of PCPs and health care systems. Methods: Secondary analysis of data from a cross-sectional survey among 10 countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and USA. Participants were a random sample of 33312 PCPs with 11547 responses (34.7%). Outcome measure was a stewardship scale addressing cost-awareness and cost-consideration. Results: Across countries, 41.6% and 45.7% of the PCPs responded that they often were aware of treatment costs and considered cost, respectively. Female PCPs were less aware of costs (OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.69-0.81) and considered costs less frequently in making treatment decisions (OR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.76-0.89). Older PCPs were more aware of the costs than younger PCPs for all age categories compared to those <35 years (P < 0.001). PCPs older than 65 years (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.54-0.78) and 55-64 years (OR: 0.84; 95%CI: 0.73-0.97) were less likely to consider costs than the youngest age group. Cost-consideration of PCPs residing in countries with a single payer system was lower (OR: 0.58; 95% CI 0.35-0.95) than their colleagues in multiple payer systems. Conclusion: PCPs show moderate stewardship of health care resources with large intercountry differences. Cost-awareness may not be a necessary precondition for cost-consideration, and policies aimed at raising cost-consideration may be more important.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".