IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/ijhcfe/v23y2023i3d10.1007_s10754-023-09354-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How does the quality of care for type 2 diabetic patients benefit from GPs-nurses’ teamwork? A staggered difference-in-differences design based on a French pilot program

Author

Listed:
  • Julie Gilles de la Londe

    (Université de Paris)

  • Anissa Afrite

    (Institute for Research and Information in Health Economics (IRDES))

  • Julien Mousquès

    (Ecole Des Hautes Etudes en Santé Publique (EHESP)
    Institute for Research and Information in Health Economics (IRDES))

Abstract

In many countries, policies have explicitly encouraged primary care teams and inter-professional cooperation and skill mix, as a way to improve both productive efficiency gains and quality improvement. France faces barriers to developing team working as well as new and more advanced roles for health care professionals including nurses. We aim to estimate the impact of a national pilot experiment of teamwork between general practitioners (GPs) and advance practitioners nurses (APN)–who substitute and complement GPs–on yearly quality of care process indicators for type two diabetes patients (T2DP). Implemented by a not-for-profit meso-tier organisation and supported by the Ministry of Health, the pilot relied on the voluntary enrolment of newly GPs from 2012 to 2015; the staffing and training of APNs; skill mixing and new remuneration schemes. We use latent-response formulation models, control for endogeneity and selection bias by using controlled before-after and quasi-experimental design combining coarsened exact matching–prior to the treatment, at both GPs (435 treated vs 973 control) and T2DP levels –, with intention to treat (ITT; 18,310 in each group) and per protocol (PP, 2943 in each group) perspectives, as well as difference-in-differences estimates on balanced panel claims data from the National Health Insurance Fund linked to clinical data over the period 2010–2017. We show evidence of a positive and significant positive impact for T2DP followed-up by newly enrolled GPs in the pilot compared to the pretreatment period and the control group. The effect magnitudes were larger for PP than for ITT subsamples.

Suggested Citation

  • Julie Gilles de la Londe & Anissa Afrite & Julien Mousquès, 2023. "How does the quality of care for type 2 diabetic patients benefit from GPs-nurses’ teamwork? A staggered difference-in-differences design based on a French pilot program," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 433-466, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:ijhcfe:v:23:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s10754-023-09354-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10754-023-09354-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10754-023-09354-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10754-023-09354-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:dau:papers:123456789/14979 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Goodman-Bacon, Andrew, 2021. "Difference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 225(2), pages 254-277.
    3. Sant’Anna, Pedro H.C. & Zhao, Jun, 2020. "Doubly robust difference-in-differences estimators," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 219(1), pages 101-122.
    4. Iacus, Stefano M. & King, Gary & Porro, Giuseppe, 2011. "Multivariate Matching Methods That Are Monotonic Imbalance Bounding," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(493), pages 345-361.
    5. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    6. Sophie Massin & Alain Paraponaris & Marion Bernhard & Pierre Verger & Marie Cavillon & Fanny Mikol & Bruno Ventelou, 2014. "Les médecins généralistes face au paiement à la performance et à la coopération avec les infirmiers," Post-Print hal-01241473, HAL.
    7. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. "How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(1), pages 249-275.
    8. Sebastiaan T Houweling & Nanne Kleefstra & Kornelis JJ van Hateren & Klaas H Groenier & Betty Meyboom‐de Jong & Henk JG Bilo, 2011. "Can diabetes management be safely transferred to practice nurses in a primary care setting? A randomised controlled trial," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(9‐10), pages 1264-1272, May.
    9. Sun, Liyang & Abraham, Sarah, 2021. "Estimating dynamic treatment effects in event studies with heterogeneous treatment effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 225(2), pages 175-199.
    10. Tsiachristas, A. & Wallenburg, I. & Bond, C.M. & Elliot, R.F. & Busse, R. & van Exel, J. & Rutten-van Mölken, M.P. & de Bont, A., 2015. "Costs and effects of new professional roles: Evidence from a literature review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(9), pages 1176-1187.
    11. Mousquès, Julien & Bourgueil, Yann & Le Fur, Philippe & Yilmaz, Engin, 2010. "Effect of a French experiment of team work between general practitioners and nurses on efficacy and cost of type 2 diabetes patients care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(2-3), pages 131-143, December.
    12. Alberto Abadie, 2005. "Semiparametric Difference-in-Differences Estimators," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 72(1), pages 1-19.
    13. King, Gary & Nielsen, Richard, 2019. "Why Propensity Scores Should Not Be Used for Matching," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(4), pages 435-454, October.
    14. Baker, Andrew C. & Larcker, David F. & Wang, Charles C.Y., 2022. "How much should we trust staggered difference-in-differences estimates?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(2), pages 370-395.
    15. Callaway, Brantly & Sant’Anna, Pedro H.C., 2021. "Difference-in-Differences with multiple time periods," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 225(2), pages 200-230.
    16. Ho, Daniel E. & Imai, Kosuke & King, Gary & Stuart, Elizabeth A., 2007. "Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 199-236, July.
    17. Chevillard, Guillaume & Mousquès, Julien & Lucas-Gabrielli, Véronique & Rican, Stéphane, 2019. "Has the diffusion of primary care teams in France improved attraction and retention of general practitioners in rural areas?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(5), pages 508-515.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Roth, Jonathan & Sant’Anna, Pedro H.C. & Bilinski, Alyssa & Poe, John, 2023. "What’s trending in difference-in-differences? A synthesis of the recent econometrics literature," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 235(2), pages 2218-2244.
    2. Callaway, Brantly & Karami, Sonia, 2023. "Treatment effects in interactive fixed effects models with a small number of time periods," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 233(1), pages 184-208.
    3. Baker, Andrew C. & Larcker, David F. & Wang, Charles C.Y., 2022. "How much should we trust staggered difference-in-differences estimates?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(2), pages 370-395.
    4. Müller, Tobias & Schmid, Christian & Gerfin, Michael, 2023. "Rents for Pills: Financial incentives and physician behavior," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    5. Mikhail Mamonov & Anna Pestova & Steven Ongena, 2023. "“Crime and Punishment”? How Banks Anticipate and Propagate Global Financial Sanctions," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp753, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    6. Cl'ement de Chaisemartin & Xavier D'Haultf{oe}uille, 2021. "Two-Way Fixed Effects and Differences-in-Differences with Heterogeneous Treatment Effects: A Survey," Papers 2112.04565, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2022.
    7. Dmitry Arkhangelsky & Guido Imbens, 2023. "Causal Models for Longitudinal and Panel Data: A Survey," Papers 2311.15458, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2024.
    8. de Chaisemartin, Clément & D’Haultfœuille, Xavier, 2023. "Two-way fixed effects and differences-in-differences estimators with several treatments," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 236(2).
    9. Goodman-Bacon, Andrew, 2021. "Difference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 225(2), pages 254-277.
    10. Albanese, Andrea & Nieto, Adrián & Tatsiramos, Konstantinos, 2022. "Job Location Decisions and the Effect of Children on the Employment Gender Gap," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1113, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    11. Lin, Lihua & Zhang, Zhengyu, 2022. "Interpreting the coefficients in dynamic two-way fixed effects regressions with time-varying covariates," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    12. Kyunghoon Ban & D'esir'e K'edagni, 2022. "Robust Difference-in-differences Models," Papers 2211.06710, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2023.
    13. Dalia Ghanem & Pedro H. C. Sant'Anna & Kaspar Wüthrich, 2022. "Selection and Parallel Trends," CESifo Working Paper Series 9910, CESifo.
    14. Liyang Sun & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2022. "A Linear Panel Model with Heterogeneous Coefficients and Variation in Exposure," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 36(4), pages 193-204, Fall.
    15. Clément de Chaisemartin & Xavier D’Haultfœuille, 2023. "Two-way fixed effects and differences-in-differences with heterogeneous treatment effects: a survey," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 26(3), pages 1-30.
    16. Fone, Zachary S. & Sabia, Joseph J. & Cesur, Resul, 2023. "The unintended effects of minimum wage increases on crime," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    17. Yajima, Naonari & Arimura, Toshi H., 2022. "Promoting energy efficiency in Japanese manufacturing industry through energy audits: Role of information provision, disclosure, target setting, inspection, reward, and organizational structure," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    18. Hampton, Matt & McNamara, Scott, 2022. "The impact of educational rewards on the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    19. Anderson, D. Mark & Liang, Yang & Sabia, Joseph J., 2022. "Mandatory Seatbelt Laws and Traffic Fatalities: A Reassessment," IZA Discussion Papers 15843, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Rik Chakraborti & Gavin Roberts, 2023. "How price-gouging regulation undermined COVID-19 mitigation: county-level evidence of unintended consequences," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 51-83, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    General practitioners; Nurse’s role; Teamwork; Diabetes mellitus; Controlled before-after Studies; Difference-in-differences;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • J24 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity
    • J44 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Particular Labor Markets - - - Professional Labor Markets and Occupations
    • C23 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:ijhcfe:v:23:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s10754-023-09354-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.