ArticleFamily practice2025
Physician payment models and preventive cancer screening: a population-based retrospective cohort analysis from Ontario, Canada.
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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
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
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.