ArticleInternational journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care2025
Impact of pay-for-performance program on postoperative infection and revision risk in diabetic patients with hip replacement: a Taiwanese Cohort Study.
Article in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiabetes Mellitus is a prevalent chronic disease with considerable global health implications. The Pay-for-Performance (P4P) program is a health insurance payment system designed to improve the quality and efficiency of diabetes care. This study explored the effect of P4P participation on postoperative infection, revision surgery risk, and associated factors among patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing hip replacement surgery.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study utilized data from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD), which included a parent population of 2 697 279 individuals with diabetes between 2010 and 2016. A total of 26 682 subjects with type 2 diabetes (P4P: 3 190; non-P4P: 23 492) who met the enrollment criteria were selected. Propensity score matching with a ratio of 1:3 (P4P: non-P4P) was performed, resulting in a final sample of 12 440 participants (P4P = 3 110; non-P4P = 9 330). All participants were followed for postoperative outcomes until 2018. The differences between the two groups in postoperative infection and revision risks were assessed using a bivariate log-rank test. The Cox proportional hazards model with a competing risk approach was employed to estimate relative risks and identify factors associated with postoperative infection and revision surgery.
resultsP4P participants exhibited a lower postoperative infection rate compared with nonparticipants (3.73% vs. 4.56%, P = .042) and a lower relative risk of postoperative infection [adjusted hazard ratio (AHR): 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65-0.99]. The beneficial effect of P4P on infection reduction was significant in specific subgroups: patients aged 55-64 years, with a monthly salary of NT$22 801-NT$28 800, and a Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) of 0 (P < .05). Although P4P participants had a lower revision surgery rate (1.54% vs. 2.03%) and a lower relative risk of revision (AHR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.65-1.24), this difference was nonsignificant (P = .522).
conclusionsParticipation in a P4P program was associated with a lower risk of postoperative infection among patients with diabetes undergoing surgery. However, the impact on revision arthroplasty risk was nonsignificantly different between the P4P and non-P4P. These findings offer valuable insights for health-care policymakers in optimizing diabetes care policies and refining P4P program design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.