Public reporting in five health care areas: A comparative content analysis across nine countries.

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Maxime Sapin, David Ehlig, Alexander Geissler, Justus Vogel
{"title":"Public reporting in five health care areas: A comparative content analysis across nine countries.","authors":"Maxime Sapin, David Ehlig, Alexander Geissler, Justus Vogel","doi":"10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.105222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Public reporting is crucial to enhance transparency, accountability, and informed provider choice. Therefore, providing accessible and reliable information on provider performance and activities is key for all healthcare areas and the utilization of information by patients, providers and related audiences.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study provides an extensive analysis of public reporting websites across nine high income countries, focusing on five healthcare areas, and aims to understand how these websites support patients in making informed choices about healthcare providers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We apply a comparative cross-country analysis to examine public reporting websites based on a framework consisting of five components: healthcare area, objectives and target audience, quality dimensions, data collection and methodology for quality indicator calculation, and visualization. Using literature and internet search as well as expert interviews, we selected 20 public reporting websites across nine high-income countries.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The websites vary widely within and across countries for most components of our framework. Notably, we found that within countries, same data used by different websites can lead to confusing or even contradictory information about the same provider, depending on the websites' reporting methods and data usage.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings suggest that establishing national standards for public reporting may reduce the risk of presenting contradictory information to patients and thus, improve provider choice. Our results lay the basis for developing such national standards.</p>","PeriodicalId":55067,"journal":{"name":"Health Policy","volume":"152 ","pages":"105222"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.105222","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Public reporting is crucial to enhance transparency, accountability, and informed provider choice. Therefore, providing accessible and reliable information on provider performance and activities is key for all healthcare areas and the utilization of information by patients, providers and related audiences.

Objective: This study provides an extensive analysis of public reporting websites across nine high income countries, focusing on five healthcare areas, and aims to understand how these websites support patients in making informed choices about healthcare providers.

Methods: We apply a comparative cross-country analysis to examine public reporting websites based on a framework consisting of five components: healthcare area, objectives and target audience, quality dimensions, data collection and methodology for quality indicator calculation, and visualization. Using literature and internet search as well as expert interviews, we selected 20 public reporting websites across nine high-income countries.

Results: The websites vary widely within and across countries for most components of our framework. Notably, we found that within countries, same data used by different websites can lead to confusing or even contradictory information about the same provider, depending on the websites' reporting methods and data usage.

Conclusion: The findings suggest that establishing national standards for public reporting may reduce the risk of presenting contradictory information to patients and thus, improve provider choice. Our results lay the basis for developing such national standards.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Policy
Health Policy 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
6.10%
发文量
157
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Policy is intended to be a vehicle for the exploration and discussion of health policy and health system issues and is aimed in particular at enhancing communication between health policy and system researchers, legislators, decision-makers and professionals concerned with developing, implementing, and analysing health policy, health systems and health care reforms, primarily in high-income countries outside the U.S.A.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信