Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41124589›Full record

ArticleFamily practice2025

Physician payment models and preventive cancer screening: a population-based retrospective cohort analysis from Ontario, Canada.

Yihong Bai, Rose Anne Devlin, Steven Habbous, Liisa Jaakkimainen, Sisira Sarma

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Family practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Yihong BaiDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada N6G 2M1.
Rose Anne DevlinDepartment of Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1N 6N5.
Steven HabbousDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada N6G 2M1.ORCID 0000-0002-9650-9105
Liisa JaakkimainenICES, Toronto, ON, Canada M4N 3M5.
Sisira SarmaDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada N6G 2M1.ORCID 0000-0001-9174-765X

Funding

Academic Medical Organization of Southwestern OntarioCIHICIHR PJI-184005CIHR PJT-191804ICESICES Western siteLawson Health Research InstituteLHRIMinistry of Long-Term CareMOHMOH CatalystMOH/MLTCSchulich School of Medicine and DentistrySSMDWesternWestern University
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOntario's primary care reforms have introduced three blended physician payment models: (i) blended fee-for-service (BFFS), (ii) blended capitation without interprofessional teams, and (iii) blended capitation with teams. Each model includes the same pay-for-performance incentives, yet their impact on cancer screening, including that during the COVID-19 pandemic, remains unclear.

methodsWe used linked administrative data (2018-23) to examine the associations between these models and colorectal, cervical, and breast cancer screening rates. Fractional probit regression models, adjusting for physician and patient characteristics, estimated the effects of each payment model relative to the BFFS. Stratified analyses explored heterogeneity by physician sex, age, practice size, rurality, and socioeconomic deprivation.

resultsCompared with the BFFS model, the blended capitation models were associated with higher screening rates, although initial differences were modest. By 2022, nonteam and team capitation models had colorectal screening rates 3.0% and 3.6% higher, respectively, than those of the BFFS. Similar but smaller increases were observed for cervical and breast cancer screening. These advantages persisted through COVID-19 disruptions and were most pronounced among physicians serving rural or socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. Stratified analyses indicated that female, younger, and higher-volume physicians performed better in capitation-based models.

conclusionsBlended capitation arrangements, especially those integrating interprofessional teams, appear more effective than the BFFS in delivering preventive cancer screening. Strengthening team-based primary care and targeted incentives could bolster preventable cancer screening rates in the population, even under pandemic-related challenges. These findings can inform policy decisions aimed at improving population health through optimized primary care provisions.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerFee-for-Service PlansAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsCapitation FeeColorectal NeoplasmsCOVID-19FemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOntarioPrimary Health CareReimbursement, IncentiveRetrospective Studiesblended capitationblended fee-for-serviceCanadacancer screeningfractional probitphysician payment models

Identifiers

PMID41124589
PMCPMC12541715

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.