MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315480020 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20210190

Association of physician financial incentives with primary care enrolment of adults with serious mental illnesses in Ontario: a retrospective observational population-based study

2023· article· en· W4315480020 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Imaan Bayoumi, Marlo Whitehead, Wenbin Li, Paul Kurdyak, Richard H. Glazier

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchJohns Hopkins UniversityCancer Care OntarioQueen's UniversityGovernment of OntarioPhysicians' Services Incorporated Foundation
KeywordsCapitationMedicinePopulationRelative riskRetrospective cohort studyFamily medicinePsychiatryConfidence intervalFinancePaymentEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Financial incentives may improve primary care access for adults with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (serious mental illness [SMI]). We studied the association between receipt of the SMI financial premium paid to primary care physicians and rostering of adults with SMI in different patient enrolment models (PEMs), including enhanced fee-for-service and capitation-based models with and without interdisciplinary team-based care. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving Ontario adults (≥18 yr) with SMI in PEM practices, in fiscal years 2016/17 and 2017/18. Using negative binomial models, we examined relations between rostering and the primary care model and the contribution of the incentive. Similar models were developed for adults with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus and the general population. RESULTS: Among 9730 physicians in PEM practices, 4866 (50.0%) received a premium and 448 319 (88.4%) people with SMI in PEMs were rostered. Compared with enhanced fee for service, the likelihood of rostering people with SMI was 3.0% higher for patients in capitation with team-based care (adjusted relative risk [RR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.04), with similar results for capitation without team-based care (adjusted RR 1.00 95% CI 0.99-1.01). Rostering for people with diabetes was similar in team-based care (adjusted RR 1.02, 95% CI 1.02-1.03) but higher in capitation without team-based care (adjusted RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02-1.03) and slightly higher for the Ontario population (team-based care 1.04, 95% CI 1.04-1.05, capitation without team-based care 1.03, 95% CI 1.03-1.04). INTERPRETATION: Rostering of people with SMI was lower than for the general population. Additional policy measures are needed to address persisting inequities and to promote rostering of this underserved population with complex needs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207