BackgroundTo date, online public healthcare reports have not been effectively used by consumers. Therefore, we qualitatively examined how healthcare consumers process and evaluate comparative healthcare information on the Internet.MethodsUsing semi-structured cognitive interviews, interviewees (n = 20) were asked to think aloud and answer questions, as they were prompted with three Dutch web pages providing comparative healthcare information.ResultsWe identified twelve themes from consumers' thoughts and evaluations. These themes were categorized under four important areas of interest: (1) a response to the design; (2) a response to the information content; (3) the use of the information, and (4) the purpose of the information.ConclusionSeveral barriers to an effective use of comparative healthcare information were identified, such as too much information and the ambiguity of terms presented on websites. Particularly important for future research is the question of how comparative healthcare information can be integrated with alternative information, such as patient reviews on the Internet. Furthermore, the readability of quality of care concepts is an issue that needs further attention, both from websites and communication experts.
Background The recent emphasis on value‐based health care (VBHC) is thought to provide new opportunities for shared decision‐making (SDM) in the Netherlands, especially when using patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine medical encounters. It is still largely unclear about how PROMs could be linked to SDM and what we expect from clinicians in this respect. Aim To describe approaches and lessons learned in the fields of SDM and VBHC implementation that converge in using PROMs in medical encounters. Approach Based on input from three Dutch forerunner case examples and available evidence about SDM and VBHC, we describe barriers and facilitators regarding the use of PROMs and SDM in the medical encounter. Barriers and facilitators were structured according to a conversational model that included monitoring and managing, team talk, option talk, choice talk, and decision talk. Key lessons learned and recommendations were synthesized. Results The use of individual, N = 1 PROMs scores in the medical encounter has been largely achieved in the forerunner projects. Conversation on monitoring and managing is relatively well implemented, and option talk to some extent, unlike team talk, and decision talk. Aggregated PROMs information describing outcomes of treatment options seemed to be scarcely used. Experienced barriers largely corresponded to what is known from the literature, eg, perceived lack of time and lack of tools summarizing the options. Some concerns were identified about increasing health care consumption as a result of using PROMs and SDM in the medical encounter. Conclusion Successful implementation of SDM within VBHC initiatives may not be self‐evident, even though individual, N = 1 PROMs scores are being used in the medical encounter. Education and staff resources on meso and macro levels may facilitate the more time‐consuming SDM aspects. It seems fruitful to especially target team talk and choice talk in redesigning clinical pathways.
Background: Ratings on the quality of healthcare from the consumer's perspective need to be adjusted for consumer characteristics to ensure fair and accurate comparisons between healthcare providers or health plans. Although multilevel analysis is already considered an appropriate method for analyzing healthcare performance data, it has rarely been used to assess case-mix adjustment of such data. The purpose of this article is to investigate whether multilevel regression analysis is a useful tool to detect case-mix adjusters in consumer assessment of healthcare. Methods: We used data on 11,539 consumers from 27 Dutch health plans, which were collected using the Dutch Consumer Quality Index health plan instrument. We conducted multilevel regression analyses of consumers' responses nested within health plans to assess the effects of consumer characteristics on consumer experience. We compared our findings to the results of another methodology: the impact factor approach, which combines the predictive effect of each case-mix variable with its heterogeneity across health plans. Results: Both multilevel regression and impact factor analyses showed that age and education were the most important case-mix adjusters for consumer experience and ratings of health plans. With the exception of age, case-mix adjustment had little impact on the ranking of health plans. Conclusions: On both theoretical and practical grounds, multilevel modeling is useful for adequate case-mix adjustment and analysis of performance ratings. Public reporting of comparative healthcare information has become an important qualityimprovement instrument in many countries.1-3 In the Netherlands, Consumer Quality Index (CQ-index or CQI) instruments have been developed to assess quality of healthcare from the consumer's perspective.4-7 CQI instruments are based on the American CAHPS (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) questionnaires 8-10 and Dutch QUOTE
The CQ-index Breast Care (CQI-BC) instrument provides a good starting point for further research on the quality of breast care seen from the perspective of patients. The newly developed instrument can be used by different stakeholders for future quality monitoring.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.