Helping patients choose: How to improve the design of comparative scorecards of hospital quality

Fasolo, Barbara; Reutskaja, Elena; Dixon, Anna; Boyce, Tammy

doi:10.1016/j.pec.2010.01.009

Cited by 47 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…If quality information is difficult to understand, patients may dismiss it as unimportant. Hence, the design of quality reports appears to be a crucial criterion for the utilization of quality information for the patients' choice of hospital (Fasolo et al, 2010). The comprehensibility of quality information can be improved by reducing cognitive requirements, such as simple presentation or simple readability, and by highlighting important information.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Hospital Reputation Influence the Choice of Hospital?

Pilny

Mennicken

2014

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Hospital Reputation Influence the Choice of Hospital?

Pilny

Mennicken

2014

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this article, informed choice of provider is defined as a choice based on known quality differences between available providers, both with regard to 'objective' quality criteria such as staff competence and 'subjective' ones such as user satisfaction. Although there is wide agreement about the need for users to access information about the qualitative differences between providers, previous empirical studies have tended to focus on what information users want or which information they utilize when making choices (Dixon et al, 2010b;Fasolo et al, 2010;Razzouk et al, 2004;Winblad and Blomqvist, 2013). Studies investigating what information they have access to are more scarce.…”

Section: User Choice and Increased Service Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

User choice in Swedish eldercare – conditions for informed choice and enhanced service quality

Moberg

Blomqvist

Winblad

2016

Journal of European Social Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Proponents of user choice argue that this type of policy arrangement improves the quality of public social services since users are expected to select the most highly performing providers. In order for users to make informed choices, however, they need quality information about the services offered by different providers. In this article, we carry out a case study, investigating whether information about service quality was presented to users of home-based elderly care in Sweden. The analysis is based on unique data regarding the information of 223 providers in 10 municipalities. The results suggest that the information was poor and lacking in important quality dimensions. This indicates a lack of real user power since it is virtually impossible for users to make informed choices without relevant information. It also makes it less likely that the general quality level of home-based services will increase as a result of the user choice.

show abstract

“…In general (regardless of country) scholars regularly pointed towards the three counts on which PQR schemes are held accountable on: improved quality of care (Marshall & McLoughlin, 2010;Colmers, 2007;Vrangbaek et al, 2012;Kroneman, Maarse, & Van der Zee, 2006;Fung et al, 2008), higher cost efficiency (Ikkersheim & Koolman, 2012;Vrangbaek et al, 2012;Dixon, Robertson & Bal, 2010;Rademakers et al, 2014;Robertson & Burge, 2011) and empowerment of patients (Magee, Davis & Coulter, 2003;Fasolo et al, 2010;Victoor et al, 2012). Although positive side-effects of PQR systems have been discussed, too little attention was given to the empowerment of patients.…”

Section: Gaps In Existing Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%