Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2001 Aug 25;323(7310):432-5.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7310.432.

Qualitative study of pilot payment aimed at increasing general practitioners' antismoking advice to smokers

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Qualitative study of pilot payment aimed at increasing general practitioners' antismoking advice to smokers

T Coleman et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objectives: To elicit general practitioners' and practice nurses' accounts of changes in their clinical practice or practice organisation made to claim a pilot health promotion payment. To describe attitudes towards the piloted and previous health promotion payments.

Design: Qualitative, semistructured interview study.

Setting: 13 general practices in Leicester.

Participants: 18 general practitioners and 13 practice nurses.

Results: Health professionals did not report substantially changing their clinical practice to claim the new payments and made only minimal changes in practice organisation. The new health promotion payment did not overcome general practitioners' resistance towards raising the issue of smoking when they felt that doing so could cause confrontation with patients. General practitioners who made the largest number of claims altered the way in which they recorded patients' smoking status rather than raising the topic of smoking more frequently with patients. PARTICIPANTS had strong negative views on the new payment, feeling it would also be viewed negatively by patients. They were, however, more positive about health promotion payments that rewarded "extra" effort-for example, setting up practice based smoking cessation clinics.

Conclusions: General practitioners and practice nurses were negative about a new health promotion payment, despite agreeing to pilot it. Health promotion payments do not automatically generate effective health promotion activity, and policymakers should consider careful piloting and evaluation of future changes in health promotion payments.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Lowy A, Brazier J, Fall M, Thomas K, Jones N, Williams D, et al. Minor surgery by general practitioners under the 1990 contract: effects on hospital workload. BMJ. 1993;307:413–417. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ritchie LD, Bisset AF, Russell D, Leslie V, Thomson I. Primary and preschool immunisation in Grampian: progress and the 1990 contract. BMJ. 1992;304:816–819. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hughes D, Yule B. The effect of per-item fees on the behaviour of general practitioners. J Health Econ. 1992;11:413–437. - PubMed
    1. Hughes D. General practitioners and the new contract: promoting better health through financial incentives. Health Policy. 1993;25:39–50. - PubMed
    1. Gosden T, Forland F, Kristiansen IS, Sutton M, Pedersen L, Leese B, et al. Capitation, salaried, fee for service and mixed systems of payment and the behaviour of primary care physicians. In: Bero L, Grilli R, Grimshaw J, Oxman A, editors. Collaboration on effective practice module of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Cochrane Library. Issue 1. Oxford: Cochrane Collaboration. Update Software; 1998. :CD002215.

Publication types