Cochrane · intervention · CD009853

The effect of different methods of remuneration on the behaviour of primary care dentists

Brocklehurst, P, Price, J, Glenny, AM, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2013 · Cochrane Library

Full textEvery question was extracted from the full review (methods and results), not only its Summary of Findings table.
Questions
30
current version
GRADE rated
27
No studies
0
Included studies
2
as reported
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 3 · 10%Very low 3 · 10%Low 24 · 80%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.

Review question

ElementPlanned (methods)Found (results)
PopulationPrimary care dentists providing routine dental care in primary care environmentsPrimary care dentists and children in the UK: 503 dental practices, 821 dentists, 4771 patients (n=2 studies); dentists seeing children with erupted second permanent molars in deprived areas of Scotland (n=1); children 0- to 15-years-old undergoing routine continuing dental care in England and Scotland (n=1)
InterventionFee-for-service payments; Fixed salary payments; Capitation payments; Blended payments (combinations of above)Fee-for-service remuneration (n=1); Capitation remuneration (n=1)
ComparisonComparison between different methods of remunerationNo specific intervention/control (n=1); Fee-for-service remuneration (n=1)
OutcomesMeasures of clinical activity; Measures of health service utilisation; Healthcare costs; Patient outcomes; Measures of non-clinical behaviour of primary care dentists; Measures of dental practice profitability/income; Any unintended effectsMeasures of clinical activity (n=2); Measures of health service utilisation (n=1); Healthcare costs (n=2); Patient outcomes (n=1); Measures of non-clinical behaviour (n=1); Unintended effects (n=1)
Study designsRandomised controlled trials (RCTs); Non-randomised clinical trials (NRCTs); Controlled before-after (CBA) studies (at least two sites in each group); Interrupted time series (ITS) studiesCluster-randomised controlled trials (n=2)
TimingNot specified18 months (n=1); 3 years (n=1)

Search date: 2013-06. Databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (Ovid); EMBASE (Ovid); EPOC Group Specialised Register; EconLit (ProQuest); PAIS International (ProQuest); CINAHL (EbscoHost); NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED); Health Economic Evaluations Database (HEED)

Questions and results

Show all 2 versions

Fee-for-service remuneration vs No specific intervention (control)

Population: Dentists seeing children with erupted second permanent molars (Scotland, in areas representing the four most deprived categories out of seven)
3 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Healthcare costs: cost-effectiveness of fee-for-service vs control (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, reported as % change in outcome per GBP; currency year NR)
18 months
ICER 0.101 study · 68 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, indirectness
Measures of clinical activity: mean percentage of 12- to 14-year-olds receiving fissure sealants for second permanent molars per dentist (weighted by number of children seen) - unadjusted
18 months
RD 7.1 [-1.9, 16.1]
7.1 [-1.9, 16.1] percentage points higher (fissure sealant placement, unadjusted)
1 study · 133 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, indirectness
Measures of clinical activity: mean percentage of 12- to 14-year-olds receiving fissure sealants for second permanent molars per dentist (weighted by number of children seen) - adjusted
18 months
RD 9.8 [1.8, 17.8]
9.8 [1.8, 17.8] percentage points higher (fissure sealant placement, covariate-adjusted)
1 study · 133 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, indirectness

Capitation remuneration vs Fee-for-service remuneration

Population: Children (0- to 15-year-olds) undergoing routine continuing dental care at 354 dental practices, in matched pairs of Health Service administrative areas in England (northern urban, commuter suburb, rural) and Scotland
27 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Measures of non-clinical behaviour: proportion of dentists introducing innovations into their dental practices
3 years
RR 0.81
-13 percentage points (risk difference)
1 studyUngraded
Patient outcomes: mean percentage of 0- to 15-year-olds having one or more teeth extracted
3 years · Rural community
RR 0.70
-3 percentage points (risk difference)
1 study · 2250 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Unintended effects: self-reported temptation to under-prescribe (0- to 100-point visual analogue scale)
3 years
MD 20.6
20.6 VAS points (0 to 100)
1 studyUngraded
Measures of clinical activity: mean percentage of 0- to 15-year-olds receiving active preventive advice
3 years · Northern urban community
RR 2.42
27 percentage points (risk difference)
1 study · 2250 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Patient outcomes: mean number of decayed teeth per 14- to 15-year-old (data for 0- to 15-year-olds NR)
3 years · Commuter suburb community
MD 0.07
0.07 decayed teeth per 14- to 15-year-old
1 study · 1919 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Patient outcomes: mean number of filled teeth per 0- to 15-year-old
3 years · Commuter suburb community
MD -0.03
-0.03 filled teeth per 0- to 15-year-old
1 study · 2250 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Unintended effects: self-reported temptation to over-prescribe (0- to 100-point visual analogue scale)
3 years
MD -14.9
-14.9 VAS points (0 to 100)
1 studyUngraded
Measures of clinical activity: mean percentage of 0- to 15-year-olds receiving active preventive advice
3 years · Rural community
RR 0.85
-5 percentage points (risk difference)
1 study · 2250 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Patient outcomes: mean number of decayed teeth per 14- to 15-year-old (data for 0- to 15-year-olds NR)
3 years · Scottish community
MD 0.15
0.15 decayed teeth per 14- to 15-year-old
1 study · 1919 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Healthcare costs: mean expenditure in GBP per 0- to 15-year-old (currency year NR)
1 year · Scottish community
MD 1.52
1.52 GBP per 0- to 15-year-old
1 study · 276414 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Patient outcomes: mean percentage of 0- to 15-year-olds having one or more teeth extracted
3 years · Commuter suburb community
RR 1.00
0 percentage points (risk difference)
1 study · 2250 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Measures of health service utilisation: mean number of visits per 0- to 15-year-old
3 years · Commuter suburb community
MD -0.4
-0.4 visits per 0- to 15-year-old
1 study · 2250 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Measures of health service utilisation: mean number of visits per 0- to 15-year-old
3 years · Scottish community
MD -0.5
-0.5 visits per 0- to 15-year-old
1 study · 2250 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Patient outcomes: mean number of decayed teeth per 14- to 15-year-old (data for 0- to 15-year-olds NR)
3 years · Rural community
MD 0.75
0.75 decayed teeth per 14- to 15-year-old
1 study · 1919 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Healthcare costs: mean expenditure in GBP per 0- to 15-year-old (currency year NR)
1 year · Northern urban community
MD 4.22
4.22 GBP per 0- to 15-year-old
1 study · 276414 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Measures of health service utilisation: mean number of visits per 0- to 15-year-old
3 years · Rural community
MD -0.3
-0.3 visits per 0- to 15-year-old
1 study · 2250 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Measures of clinical activity: mean percentage of 0- to 15-year-olds receiving active preventive advice
3 years · Scottish community
RR 1.32
9 percentage points (risk difference)
1 study · 2250 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Patient outcomes: mean percentage of 0- to 15-year-olds having one or more teeth extracted
3 years · Northern urban community
RR 0.72
-5 percentage points (risk difference)
1 study · 2250 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Measures of health service utilisation: mean number of visits per 0- to 15-year-old
3 years · Northern urban community
MD -0.4
-0.4 visits per 0- to 15-year-old
1 study · 2250 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Patient outcomes: mean number of filled teeth per 0- to 15-year-old
3 years · Scottish community
MD -0.28
-0.28 filled teeth per 0- to 15-year-old
1 study · 2250 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Healthcare costs: mean expenditure in GBP per 0- to 15-year-old (currency year NR)
1 year · Commuter suburb community
MD 6.18
6.18 GBP per 0- to 15-year-old
1 study · 276414 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Patient outcomes: mean number of filled teeth per 0- to 15-year-old
3 years · Northern urban community
MD -0.18
-0.18 filled teeth per 0- to 15-year-old
1 study · 2250 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Patient outcomes: mean percentage of 0- to 15-year-olds having one or more teeth extracted
3 years · Scottish community
RR 0.93
-1 percentage points (risk difference)
1 study · 2250 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Patient outcomes: mean number of decayed teeth per 14- to 15-year-old (data for 0- to 15-year-olds NR)
3 years · Northern urban community
MD 0.16
0.16 decayed teeth per 14- to 15-year-old
1 study · 1919 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Patient outcomes: mean number of filled teeth per 0- to 15-year-old
3 years · Rural community
MD -0.21
-0.21 filled teeth per 0- to 15-year-old
1 study · 2250 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Healthcare costs: mean expenditure in GBP per 0- to 15-year-old (currency year NR)
1 year · Rural community
MD 6.90
6.90 GBP per 0- to 15-year-old
1 study · 276414 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Measures of clinical activity: mean percentage of 0- to 15-year-olds receiving active preventive advice
3 years · Commuter suburb community
RR 1.83
15 percentage points (risk difference)
1 study · 2250 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias