Skip to main content

Table 4 Assessment scores for outcome relevance and methodological quality of the studies included in the review narratively discussing the impacts of P4P by patients’ and/or providers’ sex/gender

From: The evidence gap on gendered impacts of performance-based financing among family physicians for chronic disease care: a systematic review reanalysis in contexts of single-payer universal coverage

 

Number of patients with diabetes in the study

Number of providers in the study

Outcome measures

Methods

Assessment

Selection bias

Study design

Confounders

LeBlanc et al. [36]

83 580

583

C

B

C

C

Partial evaluation

Lippi Bruni et al. [37]

164 574

2 938

B

A

A

A

Full evaluation

Iezzi et al. [6]

164 574

2 990

A

A

A

A

Full evaluation

Yuan et al. [38]

2 022

n.r.

C

C

C

C

Partial evaluation

Hsieh et al. [39]

2 986

n.r.

A

A

A

A

Full evaluation

Pan et al. [40]

396 838

n.r.

B

A

A

A

Full evaluation

Crawley et al. [41]

1 173

n.r.

C

B

C

C

Partial evaluation

Millet et al. [42]

154 945

n.r.

C

A

C

C

Partial evaluation

  1. n.r. not reported. Note: The assessment grid used in the determination of the letter scores for methodological quality is detailed elsewhere [5].