BackgroundIn the UK, the National Health Service has various incentivisation schemes in place to improve the provision of high-quality care. The Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) and other Pay for Performance (P4P) schemes are incentive frameworks that focus on meeting predetermined clinical outcomes. However, the ability of these schemes to meet their aims is debated.Objectives(1) To explore current incentive schemes available in general practice in the UK, their impact and effectiveness in improving quality of care and (2) To identify other types of incentives discussed in the literature.MethodsThis systematic literature review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Six databases were searched: Cochrane, PubMed, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Evidence, Health Management Information Consortium, Embase and Health Management. Articles were screened according to the selection criteria, evaluated against critical appraisal checklists and categorised into themes.Results35 articles were included from an initial search result of 22087. Articles were categorised into the following three overarching themes: financial incentives, non-financial incentives and competition.DiscussionThe majority of the literature focused on QOF. Its positive effects included reduced mortality rates, better data recording and improved sociodemographic inequalities. However, limitations involved decreased quality of care in non-incentivised activities, poor patient experiences due to tick-box exercises and increased pressure to meet non-specific targets. Findings surrounding competition were mixed, with limited evidence found on the use of non-financial incentives in primary care.ConclusionCurrent research looks extensively into financial incentives, however, we propose more research into the effects of intrinsic motivation alongside existing P4P schemes to enhance motivation and improve quality of care.
Background Ramadan fasting is practiced by hundreds of millions every year. This ritual practice changes diet and lifestyle dramatically; thus, the effect of Ramadan fasting on blood pressure must be determined. Methods and Results LORANS (London Ramadan Study) is an observational study, systematic review, and meta‐analysis. In LORANS, we measured systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 85 participants before and right after Ramadan. In the systematic review, studies were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Scopus from inception to March 3, 2020. We meta‐analyzed the effect from these studies and unpublished data from LORANS. We included observational studies that measured SBP and/or DBP before Ramadan and during the last 2 weeks of Ramadan or the first 2 weeks of the month after. Data appraisal and extraction were conducted by at least 2 reviewers in parallel. We pooled SBP and DBP using a random‐effects model. The systematic review is registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; CRD42019159477). In LORANS, 85 participants were recruited; mean age was 45.6±15.9 years, and 52.9% ( n =45) of participants were men. SBP and DBP after Ramadan fasting were lower by 7.29 mm Hg (−4.74 to −9.84) and 3.42 mm Hg (−1.73 to −5.09), even after adjustment for potential confounders. We identified 2778 studies of which 33 with 3213 participants were included. SBP and DBP after/before Ramadan were lower by 3.19 mm Hg (−4.43 to −1.96, I 2 =48%) and 2.26 mm Hg (−3.19 to −1.34, I 2 =66%), respectively. In subgroup analyses, lower blood pressures were observed in the groups who are healthy or have hypertension or diabetes but not in patients with chronic kidney disease. Conclusions Our study suggests beneficial effects of Ramadan fasting on blood pressure independent of changes in weight, total body water, and fat mass and supports recommendations for some governmental guidelines that describe Ramadan fasting as a safe religious practice with respect to blood pressure.
ObjectivesTo review available health and nutrition claims for infant formula products in multiple countries and to evaluate the validity of the evidence used for substantiation of claims.DesignInternational cross sectional survey.SettingPublic facing and healthcare professional facing company owned or company managed formula industry websites providing information about products marketed for healthy infants delivered at full term in 15 countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States in 2020-22.Main outcome measuresNumber and type of claims made for each product and ingredient. References cited were reviewed and risk of bias was assessed for registered clinical trials using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and for systematic reviews using the Risk Of Bias in Systematic reviews tool.Results757 infant formula products were identified, each with a median of two claims (range from 1 (Australia) to 4 (US)), and 31 types of claims across all products. Of 608 products with ≥1 claims, the most common claim types were “helps/supports development of brain and/or eyes and/or nervous system” (323 (53%) products, 13 ingredients), “strengthens/supports a healthy immune system” (239 (39%) products, 12 ingredients), and “helps/supports growth and development” (224 (37%) products, 20 ingredients). 41 groups of ingredients were associated with ≥1claims, but many claims were made without reference to a specific ingredient (307 (50%) products). The most common groups of ingredients cited in claims were long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (278 (46%) products, 9 different claims); prebiotics, probiotics, or synbiotics (225 (37%) products, 19 claims); and hydrolysed protein (120 (20%) products, 9 claims). 161/608 (26%) products with ≥1 claims provided a scientific reference to support the claim—266 unique references were cited for 24 different claim types for 161 products. The reference types most frequently cited were clinical trials (50%, 134/266) and reviews (20%, 52/266). 28% (38/134) of referenced clinical trials were registered, 14% (19/134) prospectively. 58 claims referred to 32 registered clinical trials, of which 51 claims (27 trials) related to a randomised comparison. 46 of 51 claims (90%) referenced registered clinical trial outcomes at high risk of bias, and all cited systematic reviews and pooled analyses, carried a high risk of bias.ConclusionsMost infant formula products had at least one health and nutrition claim. Multiple ingredients were claimed to achieve similar health or nutrition effects, multiple claims were made for the same ingredient type, most products did not provide scientific references to support claims, and referenced claims were not supported by robust clinical trial evidence.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.