Literature DB >> 9406106

Interpreting health outcomes.

H T Davies1, I K Crombie.   

Abstract

Interest in outcomes is universal. To patients, good outcomes represent their highest hopes for therapy; to health care professionals, good outcomes are the desired end-point of a complex web of care. More recently, politicians and health care managers too have shifted their emphasis away from health service activity and towards what is termed 'health gain'. The rise of the outcomes movement appears irresistible. However, the difficulties in interpreting outcomes data will not go away. Outcomes measured using routine data are subject to numerous biases and many practical difficulties. Despite recent statistical, methodological and technological advances, comparisons of outcomes at best provide us with weak evidence of either the effectiveness or the quality of health care. And sometimes they may frankly mislead. The apparent intuitiveness of outcomes monitoring has broad public appeal. But enthusiasm for outcomes needs to be tempered with a clear understanding of their limitations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9406106     DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2753.1997.00003.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract        ISSN: 1356-1294            Impact factor:   2.431


  15 in total

1.  Clinical governance: bridging the gap between managerial and clinical approaches to quality of care.

Authors:  S A Buetow; M Roland
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1999-09

2.  Public release of performance data and quality improvement: internal responses to external data by US health care providers.

Authors:  H T Davies
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-06

3.  James MacKenzie lecture 1998. Quality and efficiency: enemies or partners?

Authors:  M Roland
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Trust in performance indicators?

Authors:  H T Davies; J Lampel
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1998-09

5.  Using routine comparative data to assess the quality of health care: understanding and avoiding common pitfalls.

Authors:  A E Powell; H T O Davies; R G Thomson
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2003-04

6.  Quality to the fore in health policy--at last. But the NHS mustn't encourage quality improvement with punitive approaches.

Authors:  R Thomson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-07-11

7.  Impact of the QOF and the NICE guideline in the diagnosis and management of depression: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Caroline Mitchell; Rachel Dwyer; Teresa Hagan; Nigel Mathers
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 8.  Are all outcomes in chronic heart failure rated equally? An argument for a patient-centred approach to outcome assessment.

Authors:  Sungwon Chang; Phillip J Newton; Sally Inglis; Tim Luckett; Henry Krum; Peter Macdonald; Patricia M Davidson
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 4.214

9.  Global quantitative indices reflecting provider process-of-care: data-base derivation.

Authors:  John L Moran; Patricia J Solomon
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2010-04-19       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  The applications of PROs in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why?

Authors:  Joanne Greenhalgh
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-12-23       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.