Table 3:

Association between enrolment in payment model and chronic disease management and prevention, as of Mar. 31, 2011

Type of screening and payment model	Crude rate, %	Type of analysis;^* RR (95% CI)
Type of screening and payment model	Crude rate, %	Unadjusted	Adjusted for patient^† characteristics	Adjusted for patient^† and physician^‡ characteristics
Recommended testing for diabetes
Team-based capitation	39.7	1.24 (1.20 to 1.28)	1.24 (1.20 to 1.28)	1.22 (1.18 to 1.25)
Non–team-based capitation	36.2	1.12 (1.09 to 1.15)	1.12 (1.09 to 1.15)	1.10 (1.07 to 1.14)
Enhanced fee for service	31.6	Reference	Reference	Reference
Cervical cancer screening
Team-based capitation	69.2	1.07 (1.06 to 1.09)	0.99 (0.99 to 1.00)	1.00 (0.99 to 1.01)
Non–team-based capitation	67.5	1.05 (1.04 to 1.06)	1.00 (1.00 to 1.01)	1.01 (1.00 to 1.02)
Enhanced fee for service	66.3	Reference	Reference	Reference
Breast cancer screening
Team-based capitation	76.6	1.10 (1.09 to 1.11)	1.08 (1.07 to 1.09)	1.06 (1.06 to 1.07)
Non–team-based capitation	74.5	1.07 (1.06 to 1.08)	1.05 (1.04 to 1.06)	1.04 (1.03 to 1.05)
Enhanced fee for service	71.5	Reference	Reference	Reference
Colorectal cancer screening
Team-based capitation	63.0	1.08 (1.06 to 1.09)	1.05 (1.03 to 1.06)	1.03 (1.02 to 1.04)
Non–team-based capitation	63.5	1.08 (1.07 to 1.10)	1.05 (1.04 to 1.07)	1.04 (1.03 to 1.05)
Enhanced fee for service	60.9	Reference	Reference	Reference

Note: CI = confidence interval, RR = relative risk.
↵* Adjustment was performed with Poisson regression models, using generalized estimating equations to account for clustering at the physician level.
↵† Adjustment for the following patient characteristics: age, rurality, income quintile, morbidity (resource utilization band) and immigration status.
↵‡ Adjustment for the following physician characteristics: age, sex, number of rostered patients and whether a Canadian medical graduate.