IntroductionQualitative methods have become integral in health services research, and Andersen’s behavioural model of health services use (BMHSU) is one of the most commonly employed models of health service utilisation. The model focuses on three core factors to explain healthcare utilisation: predisposing, enabling and need factors. A recent overview of the application of the BMHSU is lacking, particularly regarding its application in qualitative research. Therefore, we provide (1) a descriptive overview of the application of the BMHSU in health services research in general and (2) a qualitative synthesis on the (un)suitability of the model in qualitative health services research.MethodsWe searched five databases from March to April 2019, and in April 2020. For inclusion, each study had to focus on individuals ≥18 years of age and to cite the BMHSU, a modified version of the model, or the three core factors that constitute the model, regardless of study design, or publication type. We used MS Excel to perform descriptive statistics, and applied MAXQDA 2020 as part of a qualitative content analysis.ResultsFrom a total of 6319 results, we identified 1879 publications dealing with the BMSHU. The main methodological approach was quantitative (89%). More than half of the studies are based on the BMHSU from 1995. 77 studies employed a qualitative design, the BMHSU was applied to justify the theoretical background (62%), structure the data collection (40%) and perform data coding (78%). Various publications highlight the usefulness of the BMHSU for qualitative data, while others criticise the model for several reasons (eg, its lack of cultural or psychosocial factors).ConclusionsThe application of different and older models of healthcare utilisation hinders comparative health services research. Future research should consider quantitative or qualitative study designs and account for the most current and comprehensive model of the BMHSU.
Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are available for revascularization of coronary artery disease (CAD) with the aims to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and to improve disease-related quality of life in particular. The German National Care Guideline (NVL-cKHK) on chronic CAD recommends the establishment of so-called heart teams for decision making in myocardial revascularization to improve the quality of care. Preferred recommendations for PCI or CABG are given for different patient subgroups depending on patient characteristics, concomitant diseases, and coronary morphology. The myocardial revascularization study (REVASK) is a noninterventional cohort study on care of patients undergoing PCI or CABG based on retrospective statutory health insurance (SHI) routine data, registry data from the German Cardiac Society (DGK) resp., the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (DGTHG), combined with prospective primary data collection from health care providers and patients. The primary goal is to investigate whether and to which extent heart teams, consisting of cardiologists and cardiac surgeons, increase guideline adherence in decision making for myocardial revascularization. Ultimately the study project aims to improve patient care in terms of decision making for appropriate myocardial revascularization. Through the consistent implementation of the German National Care Guideline on chronic Coronary Artery Disease (NVL-cKHK) and the European Guidelines on myocardial revascularization, the reduction of morbidity, mortality and the reduced need for subsequent revascularization procedures are also desirable from a health economics perspective.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.