Brenda Leese

Bio: Brenda Leese is an academic researcher from University of Leeds. The author has contributed to research in topics: Health care & Purchasing. The author has an hindex of 30, co-authored 98 publications receiving 3189 citations. Previous affiliations of Brenda Leese include University of Manchester & University of York.

Capitation, salary, fee-for-service and mixed systems of payment: effects on the behaviour of primary care physicians.

Abstract: Background It is widely believed that the method of payment of physicians may affect their clinical behaviour. Although payment systems may be used to achieve policy objectives (e.g. cost containment or improved quality of care), little is known about the effects of different payment systems in achieving these objectives. Objectives To evaluate the impact of different methods of payment (capitation, salary, fee for service and mixed systems of payment) on the clinical behaviour of primary care physicians (PCPs). Search methods We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register; the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register; MEDLINE (1966 to October 1997); BIDS EMBASE (1980 to October 1997); BIDS ISI (1981 to October 1997); EconLit (1969 to October 1997); HealthStar (1975 to October 1997) Helmis (1984 to October 1997); health economics discussion paper series of the Universities of York, Aberdeen, Sheffield, Bristol, Brunel, and McMaster; Swedish Institute of Health Economics; RAND corporation; and reference lists of articles. Selection criteria Randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series analyses of interventions comparing the impact of capitation, salary, fee for service (FFS) and mixed systems of payment on primary care physician satisfaction with working environment; cost and quantity of care; type and pattern of care; equity of care; and patient health status and satisfaction. Data collection and analysis Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Main results Four studies were included involving 640 primary care physicians and more than 6400 patients. There was considerable variation in study setting and the range of outcomes measured. FFS resulted in more primary care visits/contacts, visits to specialists and diagnostic and curative services but fewer hospital referrals and repeat prescriptions compared with capitation. Compliance with a recommended number of visits was higher under FFS compared with capitation payment. FFS resulted in more patient visits, greater continuity of care, higher compliance with a recommended number of visits, but patients were less satisfied with access to their physician compared with salaried payment. Authors' conclusions It is noteworthy that so few studies met the inclusion criteria. There is some evidence to suggest that the method of payment of primary care physicians affects their behaviour, but the findings' generalisability is unknown. More evaluations of the effect of payment systems on PCP behaviour are needed, especially in terms of the relative impact of salary versus capitation payments.

Why ethnic minority groups are under‐represented in clinical trials: a review of the literature

Abstract: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered to be the gold standard in evaluating medical interventions; however, people from ethnic minorities are frequently under-represented in such studies. The present paper addresses a previously neglected debate about the tensions which inform clinical trial participation amongst people from ethnic minorities, in particular, South Asians, the largest ethnic minority group in the UK. In a narrative review of the available literature, based mainly on US studies, the present authors aim to make sense of the issues around under-representation by providing a theoretical reconciliation. In addition, they identify a number of potential barriers to ethnic minority participation in clinical trials. In so doing, the authors recognise that the recent history of eugenic racism, and more general views on clinical trials as a form of experimentation, means that clinical trial participation among people from ethnic minorities becomes more problematic. Lack of participation and the importance of representational sampling are also considered, and the authors argue that health professionals need to be better informed about the issues. The paper concludes by offering a number of strategies for improving ethnic minority accrual rates in clinical trials, together with priorities for future research.

Impact of payment method on behaviour of primary care physicians: a systematic review.

Abstract: Objective: To review the impact of payment systems on the behaviour of primary care physicians.Methods: All randomised trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series studies that compared capitation, salary, fee-for-service or target payments (mixed or separately) that were identified by computerised searches of the literature. Methodological quality assessment and data extraction were undertaken independently by two reviewers using a data checklist. Study results were qualitatively analysed.Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria. There was considerable variation in the quality of reporting, study setting and the range of outcomes measured. Fee-for-service resulted in a higher quantity of primary care services provided compared with capitation but the evidence of the impact on the quantity of secondary care services was mixed. Fee-for-service resulted in more patient visits, greater continuity of care, higher compliance with a recommended number of visits, but lower pati...

Involving South Asian patients in clinical trials.

Abstract: Objectives To investigate how South Asian patients conceptualise the notion of clinical trials and to identify key processes that impact on trial participation and the extent to which communication difficulties, perceptions of risk and attitudes to authority influence these decisions. Also to identify whether 'South Asian' patients are homogeneous in these issues, and which factors differ between different South Asian subgroups and finally how professionals regard the involvement of South Asian patients and their views on strategies to increase participation. Data sources A review of the literature on minority ethnic participation in clinical trials was followed by three qualitative interview studies. Interviews were taped and transcribed (and translated if required) and subjected to framework analysis. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 25 health professionals; 60 South Asian lay people who had not taken part in a trial and 15 South Asian trial participants. Results Motivations for trial participation were identified as follows: to help society, to improve own health or that of family and friends, out of obligation to the doctor and to increase scientific knowledge. Deterrents were concerns about drug side-effects, busy lifestyles, language, previous bad experiences, mistrust and feelings of not belonging to British society. There was no evidence of antipathy amongst South Asians to the concept of clinical trials and, overall, the younger respondents were more knowledgeable than the older ones. Problems are more likely to be associated with service delivery. Lack of being approached was a common response. Lay-reported factors that might affect South Asian participation in clinical trials include age, language, social class, feeling of not belonging/mistrust, culture and religion. Awareness of clinical trials varied between each group. There are more similarities than differences in attitudes towards clinical trial participation between the South Asian and the general population. Important decisions, such as participation in clinical trials, are likely to be made by those family members who are fluent in English and younger. Social class appears to be more important than ethnicity, and older South Asian people and those from working class backgrounds appear to be more mistrustful. Approachable patients (of the same gender, social class and fluent in English) tend to be 'cherry picked' to clinical trials. This practice was justified because of a lack of time and resources and inadequate support. South Asian patients might be systematically excluded from trials owing to the increased cost and time associated with their inclusion, particularly in relation to the language barrier. Under-representation might also be due to passive exclusion associated with cultural stereotypes. Other characteristics such as gender, age, educational level and social class can also affect trial inclusion. Conclusions Effective strategies for South Asian recruitment to clinical trials include: using multi-recruitment strategies; defining the demographic and social profiles of the population to be included; using focus groups to identify any potential barriers; consulting representative community members to provide assistance in the study; ensuring eligibility criteria are set as wide as possible; developing educational and recruitment approaches to attract ethnic minority health professionals; ensuring health professionals are adequately trained in culturally and ethnically orientated service provision; determining the most effective mass media to use in study promotion and recruitment; and targeting inner-city, single-handed practices likely to have high ethnic minority populations. Future research should consider: responses when invited to participate; the role of methodological and organisational barriers to recruitment; the complexities of recruitment from a health professional perspective; developing culturally sensitive research methods; the magnitude of the problem of under-recruitment; strategies to encourage inner-city, single-handed GP participation; and other factors affecting trial inclusion, such as age, gender, educational level and socio-cultural background.

Target payments in primary care: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The method by which physicians are paid may affect their professional practice. Although payment systems may be used to achieve policy objectives (e.g. improving quality of care, cost containment and recruitment to under-served areas), little is known about the effects of different payment systems in achieving these objectives. Target payments are a payment system which remunerate professionals only if they provide a minimum level of care. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of target payments on the professional practice of primary care physicians (PCPs) and health care outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register; the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register; MEDLINE (1966 to October 1997); BIDS EMBASE (1980 to October 1997); BIDS ISI (1981 to October 1997); EconLit (1969 to October 1997); HealthStar (1975 to October 1997) Helmis (1984 to October 1997); health economics discussion paper series of the Universities of York, Aberdeen, Sheffield, Bristol, Brunel, and McMaster; Swedish Institute of Health Economics; RAND corporation; and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series analyses of interventions comparing the impact of target payments to primary care professionals with alternative methods of payment, on patient outcomes, health services utilisation, health care costs, equity of care, and PCP satisfaction with working environment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies were included involving 149 practices. The use of target payments in the remuneration of PCPs was associated with improvements in immunisation rates, but the increase was statistically significant in only one of the two studies. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from the studies identified in this review is not of sufficient quality or power to obtain a clear answer to the question as to whether target payment remuneration provides a method of improving primary health care. Additional efforts should be directed in evaluating changes in physicians' remuneration systems. Although it would not be difficult to design a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the impact of such payment systems, it would be difficult politically to conduct such trials.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

Abstract: Background Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty. Objectives To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions. Search methods For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008). Selection criteria We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were: A) 'choice made' attributes; B) 'decision-making process' attributes. Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model. Main results This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each. Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies). A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes: Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13). B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes: Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in: a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18); b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); and c) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18). Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice. C) Secondary outcomes Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable. The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive. Authors' conclusions There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values. New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

A systematic review of the literature

Abstract: OBJECTIVE — To systematically review the incidence of posttransplantation diabetes (PTD), risk factors for its development, prognostic implications, and optimal management. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS — We searched databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and others) from inception to September 2000, reviewed bibliographies in reports retrieved, contacted transplantation experts, and reviewed specialty journals. Two reviewers independently determined report inclusion (original studies, in all languages, of PTD in adults with no history of diabetes before transplantation), assessed study methods, and extracted data using a standardized form. Meta-regression was used to explain between-study differences in incidence. RESULTS — Nineteen studies with 3,611 patients were included. The 12-month cumulative incidence of PTD is lower (10% in most studies) than it was 3 decades ago. The type of immunosuppression explained 74% of the variability in incidence (P 0.0004). Risk factors were patient age, nonwhite ethnicity, glucocorticoid treatment for rejection, and immunosuppression with high-dose cyclosporine and tacrolimus. PTD was associated with decreased graft and patient survival in earlier studies; later studies showed improved outcomes. Randomized trials of treatment regimens have not been conducted. CONCLUSIONS — Physicians should consider modification of immunosuppressive regimens to decrease the risk of PTD in high-risk transplant recipients. Randomized trials are needed to evaluate the use of oral glucose-lowering agents in transplant recipients, paying particular attention to interactions with immunosuppressive drugs. Diabetes Care 25:583–592, 2002