Literature DB >> 35060622

Accounting for past patient composition in evaluations of quality reporting.

Katherine I Tierney1, Samuel Fishman2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether accounting for past patient composition in evaluations of the association between public quality reports and patient selectivity changes findings and conclusions. DATA SOURCES: Secondary data analysis of public reports of Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic success rates between 2011 and 2018. STUDY
DESIGN: Two sets of fixed effects models, (1) a standard fixed-effects model (FE) and (2) a dynamic panel model using structural equation modeling estimated with maximum-likelihood (ML-SEM) with one- and two-year lagged patient characteristics, are compared. The outcome variables are patient composition features associated with success rates, including two age categories and eight diagnoses of infertility. Two-year lagged success rates for any live birth and a singleton live birth are central predictor variables. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION
METHODS: Clinics with complete records for the 2011-2018 period were included (N = 303). PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: For live birth success rates, the two models show increases in the two-year lagged success rate is associated with a reduction in (1) the transformed percentage of patients with endometriosis (FE: β = -0.006, SE = 0.002, p < 0.01; ML-SEM: β = -0.005, SE = 0.002, p < 0.01) and (2) the percentage of patients with tubal diagnoses (FE: β = -0.090, SE = 0.017, p < 0.001; ML-SEM: β = -0.064, SE = 0.027, p < 0.05). For singleton birth success rates, the models show positive associations between the two-year lagged success rate and the percent of patients over 35 years old (FE: β = 0.219, SE = 0.033, p < 0.001; ML-SEM: β = 0.095, SE = 0.047, p < 0.05). Overall, the FE models show numerous significant associations with the two-year lagged success rate not observed in the ML-SEM models. Thus, the preferred and theoretically appropriate model (ML-SEM) and the more commonly used model (FE) yield different results.
CONCLUSIONS: Researchers and policymakers should use models that account for past patient composition when evaluating the associations between quality reports and patient selectivity.
© 2022 Health Research and Educational Trust.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ART; dynamic panel modeling; patient selection; quality reporting

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35060622      PMCID: PMC9108082          DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.13942

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.734


  54 in total

1.  Does publicizing hospital performance stimulate quality improvement efforts?

Authors:  Judith H Hibbard; Jean Stockard; Martin Tusler
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2003 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 6.301

2.  The PROMETHEUS bundled payment experiment: slow start shows problems in implementing new payment models.

Authors:  Peter S Hussey; M Susan Ridgely; Meredith B Rosenthal
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 6.301

3.  Influence of cardiac-surgery performance reports on referral practices and access to care. A survey of cardiovascular specialists.

Authors:  E C Schneider; A M Epstein
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1996-07-25       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Public reporting of provider performance at a crossroads in the United States: summary of current barriers and recommendations on how to move forward.

Authors:  Peter S Hussey; Harold S Luft; Peggy McNamara
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2014-05-27       Impact factor: 3.929

5.  New Evidence on What Works in Effective Public Reporting.

Authors:  Brent Sandmeyer; Irene Fraser
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Benefits and hazards of reporting medical outcomes publicly.

Authors:  M R Chassin; E L Hannan; B A DeBuono
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1996-02-08       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  The Effect of Publicized Quality Information on Home Health Agency Choice.

Authors:  Jeah Kyoungrae Jung; Bingxiao Wu; Hyunjee Kim; Daniel Polsky
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2015-12-30       Impact factor: 3.929

8.  Costs of infertility treatment: results from an 18-month prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Patricia Katz; Jonathan Showstack; James F Smith; Robert D Nachtigall; Susan G Millstein; Holly Wing; Michael L Eisenberg; Lauri A Pasch; Mary S Croughan; Nancy Adler
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2010-12-04       Impact factor: 7.329

9.  Hospital costs of multiple-birth and singleton-birth children during the first 5 years of life and the role of assisted reproductive technology.

Authors:  Georgina M Chambers; Van Phuong Hoang; Evelyn Lee; Michele Hansen; Elizabeth A Sullivan; Carol Bower; Michael Chapman
Journal:  JAMA Pediatr       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 16.193

10.  Accounting for past patient composition in evaluations of quality reporting.

Authors:  Katherine I Tierney; Samuel Fishman
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2022-02-03       Impact factor: 3.734

View more
  1 in total

1.  Accounting for past patient composition in evaluations of quality reporting.

Authors:  Katherine I Tierney; Samuel Fishman
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2022-02-03       Impact factor: 3.734

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.