Health policy analysis
in full colour


Our research methods help policy makers make fairer decisions with better health outcomes.

The problem. Existing analyses focus on a mythical average citizen.

The solution. We develop ways of analysing who gains and loses from health policies.

Find out more

Monitoring Fairness in the NHS

Latest tweets

Exciting work by @Jacobs__R & colleagues on measuring & comparing costs & outcomes across in mental health providers in England - we need to find ways to measure what matters to the people involved @CHEyork @CHE_Monash @HEU_unimelb

How much health does the NHS make out of the money it has? @JamesLomas88 et al from @CHEyork have found that quite a lot😀
Why should we care? Because this is the health we lose when the NHS funds new treatments 😲
Must read for #CostEffectiveness people 👇🤩 https://t.co/d21VKmokzj

RT @ISPORJournals: In this article, authors from @CHEyork estimate the annual marginal productivity of the English National Health System over a 10-year period (between 2003 and 2012). https://t.co/sOgyAlkDI7. #HEOR #opportunitycosts #econometrics

Load More...

New resources

2019

Publication details

Journal Social Science & Medicine
Date Accepted/In press - 21 Jun 2019
Date E-pub ahead of print - 10 Jul 2019
Date Published (current) - Aug 2019
Volume 235
Number of pages 10
Early online date 10/07/19
Original language English

Bibliographical note

© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy.

Publication details

Journal British Journal of General Practice
Date Accepted/In press - 13 Mar 2019
Date Published (current) - 16 Jul 2019
Issue number 685
Volume 69
Pages (from-to) E570-E577
Original language English

Abstract

Background There are substantial concerns about GP workload. The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) has been perceived by both professionals and patients as bureaucratic, but the full impact of the QOF on GP workload is not well known. Aim To assess the impact of the QOF on GP consultation rates for patients with diabetes mellitus. Design and setting This study used interrupted time series of 13 248 745 general practice consultations for 37 065 patients with diabetes mellitus in England. Method Clinical Practice Research Datalink general practice data were used from 2000/2001 to 2014/2015, with introduction of the QOF (1 April 2004) as the intervention, and mean annual GP consultation rates as the primary outcome. Results Mean annual GP clinical consultation rates were 8.10 per patient in 2000/2001, 6.91 in 2004/2005, and 7.09 in 2014/2015. Introduction of the QOF was associated with an annual change in the trend of GP clinical consultation rates of 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.23 to 0.69, P = 0.001) consultations per patient, giving a post-QOF trend increasing by 0.018 consultations per year. Introduction of the QOF was associated with an immediate stepped increase of 'other' out-of-hours and non-clinical encounters, and trend change of 0.57 (95% CI = 0.34 to 0.81, P<0.001) per year, resulting in a post-QOF trend increasing by 0.27 other encounters per year. Conclusion Introduction of the QOF was associated with a modest increase in clinical GP consultation rates and substantial increase in other encounters for patients with diabetes independent of changes in diabetes prevalence. National prevalence of diabetes increased by 90.7% from 2004/2005 to 2014/2015, which, combined with this study's findings, means GPs would have provided nearly double the number of consultations for patients with diabetes over this timescale.

Bibliographical note

© 2019 British Journal of General Practice. This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy. Further copying may not be permitted; contact the publisher for details.

Publication details

Journal Age and Ageing
Date Accepted/In press - 19 May 2019
Date E-pub ahead of print (current) - 12 Jul 2019
Early online date 12/07/19
Original language English

Bibliographical note

© 2019 Oxford University Press. This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy. Further copying may not be permitted; contact the publisher for details.

More

EQUIPOL is supported by the University of York, the Wellcome Trust (Grant No. 205427/Z/16/Z) and the NIHR (SRF-2013-06-015).

Image Image Image