Onyebuchi A Arah1, Bastiaan Roset, Diana M J Delnoij, Niek S Klazinga, Karien Stronks. 1. Adjunct Faculty, Department of Public Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the NetherlandsAssociate Professor, Department of Epidemiology, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), School of Public Health, Los Angeles, California, United States;Faculty Associate, Center for Health Policy Research, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, United States;Research fellow, Department of Public Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands;Director, Center for Consumer Experience in Health Care, Utrecht, the Netherlands.Scientific Centre for Transformation in Care and Welfare (Tranzo), University of Tilburg, Tilburg, the Netherlands;Professor, Department of Public Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the NetherlandsLead, Healthcare Quality Indicators Project, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Paris, FranceProfessor and Chair, Department of Public Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
AIMS: It has long been held that high-quality care has both technical and interpersonal aspects. The nature and strength of any association between both aspects remain poorly explored. This study investigated the associations between diabetes patients' reports of receiving recommended care (as measures of technical quality) and their experience and ratings (as measures of interpersonal care). METHODS: Using data from a cross section of 3096 patients with diabetes nested within 24 diabetes-care-networks, we conducted multilevel regression analysis of the relationships between nine indicators of receiving care recommended in practice guidelines and: six scales of patient experience and global ratings of general practitioner, nurses, and overall diabetes care. RESULTS: On average, reporting having received recommended care was associated with reporting better patient experience and ratings. The extent and frequencies of these associations varied across the different care processes. Receiving foot examination, physical activity advice, smoking status check, eye examination, and HbA1c testing, but not nutritional advice, urine, cholesterol or blood pressure checks, were statistically associated with better patient experience and global ratings. Those who received HbA1c testing rated their overall care 1.002 points higher (95% confidence interval: 0.726-1.278) on a scale of 0-10 than those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Higher self-reported technical quality of care in diabetes appears to be frequently but not always associated with better experiences and ratings. It is possible that the former leads to the latter and/or that both share a common cause within providers. Both care aspects do not seem interchangeable during performance assessment.
AIMS: It has long been held that high-quality care has both technical and interpersonal aspects. The nature and strength of any association between both aspects remain poorly explored. This study investigated the associations between diabetespatients' reports of receiving recommended care (as measures of technical quality) and their experience and ratings (as measures of interpersonal care). METHODS: Using data from a cross section of 3096 patients with diabetes nested within 24 diabetes-care-networks, we conducted multilevel regression analysis of the relationships between nine indicators of receiving care recommended in practice guidelines and: six scales of patient experience and global ratings of general practitioner, nurses, and overall diabetes care. RESULTS: On average, reporting having received recommended care was associated with reporting better patient experience and ratings. The extent and frequencies of these associations varied across the different care processes. Receiving foot examination, physical activity advice, smoking status check, eye examination, and HbA1c testing, but not nutritional advice, urine, cholesterol or blood pressure checks, were statistically associated with better patient experience and global ratings. Those who received HbA1c testing rated their overall care 1.002 points higher (95% confidence interval: 0.726-1.278) on a scale of 0-10 than those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Higher self-reported technical quality of care in diabetes appears to be frequently but not always associated with better experiences and ratings. It is possible that the former leads to the latter and/or that both share a common cause within providers. Both care aspects do not seem interchangeable during performance assessment.
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: Olga C Damman; Janine H Stubbe; Michelle Hendriks; Onyebuchi A Arah; Peter Spreeuwenberg; Diana M J Delnoij; Peter P Groenewegen Journal: Med Care Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Robert Kaba Alhassan; Stephen Opoku Duku; Wendy Janssens; Edward Nketiah-Amponsah; Nicole Spieker; Paul van Ostenberg; Daniel Kojo Arhinful; Menno Pradhan; Tobias F Rinke de Wit Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-10-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Alina Smirnova; Kiki M J M H Lombarts; Onyebuchi A Arah; Cees P M van der Vleuten Journal: Health Expect Date: 2017-02-20 Impact factor: 3.377