Evaluation of the NHS England evidence-based interventions programme: a difference-in-difference analysis

dc.contributor.authorAnderson, Michael
dc.contributor.authorMolloy, Aoife
dc.contributor.authorMaynou Pujolràs, Laia
dc.contributor.authorKyriopoulos, Ilias
dc.contributor.authorMcGuire, Alistair
dc.contributor.authorMossialos, Elias
dc.date.accessioned2023-01-30T10:25:08Z
dc.date.available2023-01-30T10:25:08Z
dc.date.issued2023-01
dc.date.updated2023-01-30T10:25:08Z
dc.description.abstractBackground The NHS England evidence-based interventions programme (EBI), launched in April 2019, is a novel nationally led initiative to encourage disinvestment in low value care. Method We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of this policy by using a difference-in-difference approach to compare changes in volume between January 2016 and February 2020 in a treatment group of low value procedures against a control group unaffected by the EBI programme during our period of analysis but subsequently identified as candidates for disinvestment. Results We found only small differences between the treatment and control group after implementation, with reductions in volumes in the treatment group 0.10% (95% CI 0.09% to 0.11%) smaller than in the control group (equivalent to 16 low value procedures per month). During the month of implementation, reductions in volumes in the treatment group were 0.05% (95% CI 0.03% to 0.06%) smaller than in the control group (equivalent to 7 low value procedures). Using triple difference estimators, we found that reductions in volumes were 0.35% (95% CI 0.26% to 0.44%) larger in NHS hospitals than independent sector providers (equivalent to 47 low value procedures per month). We found no significant differences between clinical commissioning groups that did or did not volunteer to be part of a demonstrator community to trial EBI guidance, but found reductions in volume were 0.06% (95% CI 0.04% to 0.08%) larger in clinical commissioning groups that posted a deficit in the financial year 2018/19 before implementation (equivalent to 4 low value procedures per month). Conclusions Our analysis shows that the EBI programme did not accelerate disinvestment for procedures under its remit during our period of analysis. However, we find that financial and organisational factors may have had some influence on the degree of responsiveness to the EBI programme.
dc.format.extent10 p.
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.idgrec723457
dc.identifier.issn2044-5415
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2445/192789
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Group
dc.relation.isformatofReproducció del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014478
dc.relation.ispartofBMJ Quality & Safety, 2023, vol. 32, num. 2, p. 90-99
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014478
dc.rightscc-by-nc (c) Anderson, Michael et al., 2023
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/es/*
dc.sourceArticles publicats en revistes (Econometria, Estadística i Economia Aplicada)
dc.subject.classificationEvidència
dc.subject.classificationAvaluació
dc.subject.classificationIntervenció (Procediment administratiu)
dc.subject.otherEvidence
dc.subject.otherEvaluation
dc.subject.otherIntervention (Administrative procedure)
dc.titleEvaluation of the NHS England evidence-based interventions programme: a difference-in-difference analysis
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion

Fitxers

Paquet original

Mostrant 1 - 1 de 1
Carregant...
Miniatura
Nom:
723457.pdf
Mida:
1.49 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format