Physician Financial Incentives for Use of Outpatient Intravenous Antimicrobial Therapy: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.025 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".