五个卫生保健领域的公共报告:九个国家的比较内容分析。

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health Policy Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.105222
Maxime Sapin, David Ehlig, Alexander Geissler, Justus Vogel
{"title":"五个卫生保健领域的公共报告:九个国家的比较内容分析。","authors":"Maxime Sapin,&nbsp;David Ehlig,&nbsp;Alexander Geissler,&nbsp;Justus Vogel","doi":"10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.105222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55067,"journal":{"name":"Health Policy","volume":"152 ","pages":"Article 105222"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public reporting in five health care areas: A comparative content analysis across nine countries\",\"authors\":\"Maxime Sapin,&nbsp;David Ehlig,&nbsp;Alexander Geissler,&nbsp;Justus Vogel\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.105222\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>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.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55067,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Policy\",\"volume\":\"152 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105222\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016885102400232X\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016885102400232X","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

摘要

背景:公开报告对于提高透明度、问责制和明智的提供者选择至关重要。因此,提供有关提供者绩效和活动的可访问且可靠的信息对于所有医疗保健领域以及患者、提供者和相关受众利用信息至关重要。目的:本研究对九个高收入国家的公共报告网站进行了广泛的分析,重点关注五个医疗保健领域,旨在了解这些网站如何支持患者对医疗保健提供者做出知情选择。方法:我们采用一种跨国比较分析方法,对公共报告网站进行检查,该框架由五个组成部分组成:医疗保健领域、目标和目标受众、质量维度、数据收集和质量指标计算方法,以及可视化。通过文献和互联网搜索以及专家访谈,我们选择了9个高收入国家的20个公共报道网站。结果:对于我们框架的大多数组件,网站在国家内部和国家之间差异很大。值得注意的是,我们发现,在国家内部,不同网站使用的相同数据可能导致关于同一提供商的混淆甚至矛盾的信息,这取决于网站的报告方法和数据使用情况。结论:研究结果表明,建立公共报告的国家标准可以减少向患者提供矛盾信息的风险,从而改善提供者的选择。我们的研究结果为制定这样的国家标准奠定了基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Public reporting in five health care areas: A comparative content analysis across nine countries

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
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Development of an organizational typology of interprofessional primary care teams in Quebec, Canada: A multivariate analysis A good start for all children: Integrating early-life course medical and social care through Solid Start, the Netherlands’ nationwide action programme Caregiver preferences and willingness-to-pay for home care services for older people with dementia: A discrete choice experiment in the Milan metropolitan area How beliefs and policy characteristics shape the public acceptability of nutritional policies—A survey study in Germany
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1