MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6991806651

Impact of alternative payment plans on professional equity and daily distress of physicians = Impacto de los métodos de pago alternativos en la equidad profesional y el estrés laboral diario de los médicos

2014· other· en· W6991806651 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBogotá (Banco de la República) · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaymentEquity (law)DistressHealth carePayment by ResultsHealth equityHealth professionals
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fee-for-service (FFS) payment system has been criticized for affecting quality of care, contributing to the fragmentation of health care, and for rising costs of health care systems. Alternative payment plans (APP) have been introduced as options to the traditional FFS. Despite a link between payment methods and behaviour of physicians has been established, there is a lack of evidence about the impact of payment systems on well-being (motivation and daily distress) of physicians. This dissertation explored the impact of APP on physicians’ perceptions of professional equity and daily distress.<br>The following questions guided this dissertation: 1) Does professional equity perceived by physicians vary among practitioners paid by FFS, APP, or blended alternatives? 2) Is the payment method associated with daily distress of medical practitioners? and 3) Are levels of professional equity, daily distress, and career satisfaction of physicians different by gender and payment methods? In 2011, Physicians practicing in the Saskatoon Health Region, the largest health authority of Saskatchewan, Canada, completed a questionnaire evaluating their perceptions of professional equity and daily distress. In total, 382 (48.1%) physicians participated in the study.<br>Response bias was tested and found to be negligible. The study identified that physicians paid by APP perceived higher professional equity (fair economic rewards and appropriate recognition) in comparison to those paid by FFS. Particularly, family practitioners (FPs) paid by APP perceived higher professional equity than those FPs paid by FFS. The payment method was identified as a factor associated with distress; lower levels of daily distress were predicted among physicians paid by APP who see high proportions of patients with complex conditions. Notwithstanding, female physicians had poorer well-being indicators and the impact of APP on professional equity was only distinguished among males. A potential unequal impact of APP must be recognized between female and male physicians.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBogotá (Banco de la República)Same topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207