Zoe Hildon1, Dominique Allwood, Nick Black. 1. London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Department of Health Services Research & Policy, London, UK. Zoe.hildon@lshtm.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are being used to inform national quality indicators for health care providers in England. Our objective was to explore patients' views of different formats and content of these data displays. METHODS: Six focus groups (N = 45) considered different formats (tables, bar charts, caterpillar and funnel plots) and content (uncertainty displays, volume of outcomes, color, icons, and ordering). A thematic analysis was carried out based on transcripts. RESULTS: Tables housing icons (star ratings) were the preferred display, having the most popular resonance and facilitating cognitive processing, appealing to most as the best format. Inferred meanings were overwhelmingly applied to unfamiliar formats (funnel plot) and content (uncertainty). Traffic light highlighting and using consistent and recognizable icons (five stars) helped understanding. Familiarity with the bar chart seemed to lend to false readings--error bars were not interpreted. CONCLUSION: Aspects of familiarity, meaningfulness (whether and how displays resonated with participants), and cognitive or choice processes informed views of displays. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Tables with star ratings should be a primary display, ordered on statistical significance, including providers in the region plus England average. Caterpillar plots should be used to provide contextual information. More detailed numeric tables should also be accessible.
OBJECTIVE:Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are being used to inform national quality indicators for health care providers in England. Our objective was to explore patients' views of different formats and content of these data displays. METHODS: Six focus groups (N = 45) considered different formats (tables, bar charts, caterpillar and funnel plots) and content (uncertainty displays, volume of outcomes, color, icons, and ordering). A thematic analysis was carried out based on transcripts. RESULTS: Tables housing icons (star ratings) were the preferred display, having the most popular resonance and facilitating cognitive processing, appealing to most as the best format. Inferred meanings were overwhelmingly applied to unfamiliar formats (funnel plot) and content (uncertainty). Traffic light highlighting and using consistent and recognizable icons (five stars) helped understanding. Familiarity with the bar chart seemed to lend to false readings--error bars were not interpreted. CONCLUSION: Aspects of familiarity, meaningfulness (whether and how displays resonated with participants), and cognitive or choice processes informed views of displays. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Tables with star ratings should be a primary display, ordered on statistical significance, including providers in the region plus England average. Caterpillar plots should be used to provide contextual information. More detailed numeric tables should also be accessible.
Authors: Zoe Hildon; Jenny Neuburger; Dominique Allwood; Jan van der Meulen; Nick Black Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2012-06-21 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Lydia F J van Overveld; Robert P Takes; Thomas W Vijn; Jozé C C Braspenning; Jan P de Boer; John J A Brouns; Rolf J Bun; Boukje A C van Dijk; Judith A W F Dortmans; Emilie A C Dronkers; Robert J J van Es; Frank J P Hoebers; Arvid Kropveld; Johannes A Langendijk; Ton P M Langeveld; Sjoukje F Oosting; Hendrik P Verschuur; Jan G A M de Visscher; Stijn van Weert; Matthias A W Merkx; Ludi E Smeele; Rosella P M G Hermens Journal: Health Expect Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 3.377