The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Impact of payment method on behaviour of primary care physicians: a systematic review
Abstract
Objective: To review the impact of payment systems on the behaviour of primary care physicians. Methods: All randomised trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series studies that compared capitation, salary, fee-for-service or target payments (mixed or separately) that were identified by computerised searches of the literature. Methodological quality assessment and data extraction were undertaken independently by two reviewers using a data checklist. Study results were qualitatively analysed. Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria. There was considerable variation in the quality of reporting, study setting and the range of outcomes measured. Fee-for-service resulted in a higher quantity of primary care services provided compared with capitation but the evidence of the impact on the quantity of secondary care services was mixed. Fee-for-service resulted in more patient visits, greater continuity of care, higher compliance with a recommended number of visits, but lower patient satisfaction with access to a physician compared with salary payment. The evidence of the impact of target payment on immunisation rates was inconclusive. Conclusions: There is some evidence to suggest that how a primary care physician is paid does affect his/her behaviour but the generalisability of these studies is unknown. Most policy changes in the area of payment systems are inadequately informed by research. Future changes to doctor payment systems need to be rigorously evaluated.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Flodgren, G., Eccles, M. P., Shepperd, S., Scott, A., Parmelli, E., & Beyer, F. R. (2011) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd009255 · Cited by 418
Lau, R., Stevenson, F., Ong, B. N., Dziedzic, K., Treweek, S., Eldridge, S., Everitt, H., Kennedy, A., Qureshi, N., Rogers, A., et al. (2015) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009993 · Cited by 254
Anthierens, S., Tonkin-Crine, S., Douglas, E., Fernandez-Vandellos, P., Krawczyk, J., Llor, C., Cals, J. W., Francis, N. A., Yardley, L., Coenen, S., et al. (2012) · BMC Family Practice · doi:10.1186/1471-2296-13-101 · Cited by 75
From Physician to Consumer: The Effectiveness of Strategies to Manage Health Care Utilization
Flynn, K. E., Smith, M. A., & Davis, M. K. (2002) · Medical Care Research and Review · doi:10.1177/107755802237811 · Cited by 36
Will blended family physician payment models revive primary care in Canada?
McCracken, R. K., Lavergne, M. R., & Hedden, L. (2025) · Canadian Family Physician · doi:10.46747/cfp.7106377 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Gosden, T., Forland, F., Kristiansen, I. S., Sutton, M., Leese, B., Giuffrida, A., Sergison, M., & Pedersen, L.
- Venue
- Journal of Health Services Research & Policy
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2001-01-01
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 44-55
- ISSN
- 1355-8196 (ISSN-L)
- 1758-1060
- OpenAlex
- W2073028009
- Cited by
- 318
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 39.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Impact of payment method on behaviour of primary care physicians: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1258/1355819011927198
- The paper
- Gosden, T., Forland, F., Kristiansen, I. S., Sutton, M., Leese, B., Giuffrida, A., Sergison, M., & Pedersen, L. (2001). Impact of payment method on behaviour of primary care physicians: a systematic review. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. https://doi.org/10.1258/1355819011927198
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.