BACKGROUND: Patient-given global ratings are frequently interpreted as summary measures of the patient perspective, with limited understanding of what these ratings summarize. Global ratings may be determined by patient experiences on priority aspects of care. OBJECTIVES: (i) identify patient priorities regarding elements of care for breast cancer, hip- or knee surgery, cataract surgery, rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes, (ii) establish whether experiences regarding priorities are associated with patient-given global ratings, and (iii) determine whether patient experiences regarding priorities are better predictors of global ratings than experiences concerning less important aspects of care. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Data collected for the development of five consumer quality index surveys - disease-specific questionnaires that capture patient experiences and priorities - were used. RESULTS: Priorities varied: breast cancer patients for example, prioritized rapid access to care and diagnostics, while diabetics favoured dignity and appropriate frequency of tests. Experiences regarding priorities were inconsistently related to global ratings of care. Regression analyses indicated that demographics explain 2.4-8.4% of the variance in global rating. Introducing patient experiences regarding priorities increased the variance explained to 21.1-35.1%; models with less important aspects of care explained 11.8-23.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Some experiences regarding priorities are strongly related to the global rating while others are poorly related. Global ratings are marginally dependent on demographics, and experiences regarding priorities are somewhat better predictors of global rating than experiences regarding less important elements. As it remains to be fully determined what global ratings summarize, caution is warranted when using these ratings as summary measures.
BACKGROUND:Patient-given global ratings are frequently interpreted as summary measures of the patient perspective, with limited understanding of what these ratings summarize. Global ratings may be determined by patient experiences on priority aspects of care. OBJECTIVES: (i) identify patient priorities regarding elements of care for breast cancer, hip- or knee surgery, cataract surgery, rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes, (ii) establish whether experiences regarding priorities are associated with patient-given global ratings, and (iii) determine whether patient experiences regarding priorities are better predictors of global ratings than experiences concerning less important aspects of care. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Data collected for the development of five consumer quality index surveys - disease-specific questionnaires that capture patient experiences and priorities - were used. RESULTS: Priorities varied: breast cancerpatients for example, prioritized rapid access to care and diagnostics, while diabetics favoured dignity and appropriate frequency of tests. Experiences regarding priorities were inconsistently related to global ratings of care. Regression analyses indicated that demographics explain 2.4-8.4% of the variance in global rating. Introducing patient experiences regarding priorities increased the variance explained to 21.1-35.1%; models with less important aspects of care explained 11.8-23.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Some experiences regarding priorities are strongly related to the global rating while others are poorly related. Global ratings are marginally dependent on demographics, and experiences regarding priorities are somewhat better predictors of global rating than experiences regarding less important elements. As it remains to be fully determined what global ratings summarize, caution is warranted when using these ratings as summary measures.
Authors: Onyebuchi A Arah; A H A ten Asbroek; Diana M J Delnoij; Johan S de Koning; Piet J A Stam; Aldien H Poll; Barbara Vriens; Paul F Schmidt; Niek S Klazinga Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Diana M J Delnoij; Guus ten Asbroek; Onyebuchi A Arah; Johan S de Koning; Piet Stam; Aldien Poll; Barbara Vriens; Paul Schmidt; Niek S Klazinga Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2006-03-08 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: A James O'Malley; Alan M Zaslavsky; Marc N Elliott; Lawrence Zaborski; Paul D Cleary Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Mascha de Kok; Rachel W Scholte; Herman J Sixma; Trudy van der Weijden; Karin F Spijkers; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Jan-Anne Roukema; Fred W van der Ent; Antoine V R J Bell; Maarten F von Meyenfeldt Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2007-04-27 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Willemijn A de Graaf-Ruizendaal; Annette J Berendsen; Dolf de Boer; Dinny H de Bakker Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2013-06-25 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Marloes Zuidgeest; Diana M J Delnoij; Katrien G Luijkx; Dolf de Boer; Gert P Westert Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2012-01-31 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Nicolien C Zwijnenberg; Olga C Damman; Peter Spreeuwenberg; Michelle Hendriks; Jany J D J M Rademakers Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Judith C Booij; Marieke Zegers; Pauline M P J Evers; Michelle Hendriks; Diana M J Delnoij; Jany J D J M Rademakers Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2013-04-23 Impact factor: 4.430