Literature DB >> 20550597

Do patient experiences on priority aspects of health care predict their global rating of quality of care? A study in five patient groups.

Dolf de Boer1, Diana Delnoij, Jany Rademakers.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20550597      PMCID: PMC5060537          DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00591.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Expect        ISSN: 1369-6513            Impact factor:   3.377


  20 in total

1.  Epilogue: Early lessons from CAHPS Demonstrations and Evaluations. Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study.

Authors:  K L Carman; P F Short; D O Farley; J A Schnaier; D B Elliott; P M Gallagher
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the Hospital-level Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Survey instrument.

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

Review 3.  What do we really know about patient satisfaction?

Authors:  C Carolyn Thiedke
Journal:  Fam Pract Manag       Date:  2007-01

4.  Made in the USA: the import of American Consumer Assessment of Health Plan Surveys (CAHPS) into the Dutch social insurance system.

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

5.  Data briefing. Involvement leads to satisfaction.

Authors:  Don Redding; Jason Boyd
Journal:  Health Serv J       Date:  2008-10-23

6.  Increasing understanding of patient needs during and after hospitalization.

Authors:  D H Gustafson; N K Arora; E C Nelson; E W Boberg
Journal:  Jt Comm J Qual Improv       Date:  2001-02

7.  Case-mix adjustment of the CAHPS Hospital Survey.

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

8.  Quality of care from the patients' perspective: from theoretical concept to a new measuring instrument.

Authors:  Herman J. Sixma; Jan J. Kerssens; Crétien Van Campen; Loe Peters
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 3.377

9.  Assessing patients' priorities and perceptions of the quality of health care: the development of the QUOTE-Rheumatic-Patients instrument.

Authors:  C van Campen; H J Sixma; J J Kerssens; L Peters; J J Rasker
Journal:  Br J Rheumatol       Date:  1998-04

10.  The patient's perspective of the quality of breast cancer care. The development of an instrument to measure quality of care through focus groups and concept mapping with breast cancer patients.

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

View more
  18 in total

1.  The Net Promoter Score--an asset to patient experience surveys?

Authors:  Maarten W Krol; Dolf de Boer; Diana M Delnoij; Jany J D J M Rademakers
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-10-27       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Barriers to accessing biologic treatment for rheumatoid arthritis in Greece: the unseen impact of the fiscal crisis--the Health Outcomes Patient Environment (HOPE) study.

Authors:  Kyriakos Souliotis; Manto Papageorgiou; Anastasia Politi; Dimitrios Ioakeimidis; Prodromos Sidiropoulos
Journal:  Rheumatol Int       Date:  2013-09-22       Impact factor: 2.631

3.  Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Healthcare Rating, Diabetes Self-efficacy, and Diabetes Management Among Non-pregnant Women of Childbearing Age: Does Socioeconomic Status Matter?

Authors:  Kyrah K Brown; Tiffany B Kindratt; Godfred O Boateng; Grace Ellen Brannon
Journal:  J Racial Ethn Health Disparities       Date:  2021-04-07

4.  Do patient and practice characteristics confound age-group differences in preferences for general practice care? A quantitative study.

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

5.  Patients' experiences of the quality of long-term care among the elderly: comparing scores over time.

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

6.  The Generic Short Patient Experiences Questionnaire (GS-PEQ): identification of core items from a survey in Norway.

Authors:  Ingeborg Strømseng Sjetne; Oyvind A Bjertnaes; Rolf Vegar Olsen; Hilde Hestad Iversen; Geir Bukholm
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-04-21       Impact factor: 2.655

7.  Different patient subgroup, different ranking? Which quality indicators do patients find important when choosing a hospital for hip- or knee arthroplasty?

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

8.  Predictors of patient satisfaction and outpatient health services in China: evidence from the WHO SAGE survey.

Authors:  Hao Zhang; Wenhua Wang; Jeannie Haggerty; Tibor Schuster
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2020-09-05       Impact factor: 2.267

9.  Improving cancer patient care: development of a generic cancer consumer quality index questionnaire for cancer patients.

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

10.  The Consumer Quality index (CQ-index) in an accident and emergency department: development and first evaluation.

Authors:  Nanne Bos; Leontien M Sturms; Augustinus Jp Schrijvers; Henk F van Stel
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-08-28       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.