[医疗评估质量评估中被保险人视角的整合]。

IF 0.2 Q4 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL THERAPEUTISCHE UMSCHAU Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1024/0040-5930/a001414
Timm Rosburg, Regine Lohss, Monica S Bachmann, Brigitte Walter Meyer, Wout de Boer, Katrin Fischer, Regina Kunz
{"title":"[医疗评估质量评估中被保险人视角的整合]。","authors":"Timm Rosburg,&nbsp;Regine Lohss,&nbsp;Monica S Bachmann,&nbsp;Brigitte Walter Meyer,&nbsp;Wout de Boer,&nbsp;Katrin Fischer,&nbsp;Regina Kunz","doi":"10.1024/0040-5930/a001414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Integration of the Insured Person's Perspective in the Quality Assessment of Medical Evaluations <b>Abstract.</b> In the current practice of medical work disability evaluations and other pension assessments, insured persons in Switzerland lack the possibility to routinely provide feedback on the extent to which they felt treated with dignity and respect by medical experts, which, according to occasional complaints, does not always seem to be the case. In order to be able to systematically capture such aspects of interactive fairness, we developed a questionnaire, the Basel Fairness Questionnaire (BFQ). The BFQ contains 30 statements such as «The reviewer listened to me.», which the insured person can agree to on four levels (from «I do not agree at all.» to «I fully agree.»). For validating the questionnaire, 305 claimants for disability pensions completed the BFQ after their medical work disability evaluation. A factor analysis conducted on the answered questions confirmed our assumption that the BFQ questions covered the areas of 1) <i>respect and trust</i>, 2) <i>participation</i>, 3) <i>case familiarity of the expert</i>, and 4) <i>transparency of the evaluation process</i>. Furthermore, our study demonstrated divergent and convergent validity of the BFQ with other questionnaire instruments. The BFF opens up the possibility to capture the abstract concept of fairness by means of assessments of concrete expert behavior. We expect that the questionnaire can thus contribute to quality assurance in this sensitive area.</p>","PeriodicalId":44874,"journal":{"name":"THERAPEUTISCHE UMSCHAU","volume":"80 2","pages":"78-84"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Integration of the Insured Person's Perspective in the Quality Assessment of Medical Evaluations].\",\"authors\":\"Timm Rosburg,&nbsp;Regine Lohss,&nbsp;Monica S Bachmann,&nbsp;Brigitte Walter Meyer,&nbsp;Wout de Boer,&nbsp;Katrin Fischer,&nbsp;Regina Kunz\",\"doi\":\"10.1024/0040-5930/a001414\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Integration of the Insured Person's Perspective in the Quality Assessment of Medical Evaluations <b>Abstract.</b> In the current practice of medical work disability evaluations and other pension assessments, insured persons in Switzerland lack the possibility to routinely provide feedback on the extent to which they felt treated with dignity and respect by medical experts, which, according to occasional complaints, does not always seem to be the case. In order to be able to systematically capture such aspects of interactive fairness, we developed a questionnaire, the Basel Fairness Questionnaire (BFQ). The BFQ contains 30 statements such as «The reviewer listened to me.», which the insured person can agree to on four levels (from «I do not agree at all.» to «I fully agree.»). For validating the questionnaire, 305 claimants for disability pensions completed the BFQ after their medical work disability evaluation. A factor analysis conducted on the answered questions confirmed our assumption that the BFQ questions covered the areas of 1) <i>respect and trust</i>, 2) <i>participation</i>, 3) <i>case familiarity of the expert</i>, and 4) <i>transparency of the evaluation process</i>. Furthermore, our study demonstrated divergent and convergent validity of the BFQ with other questionnaire instruments. The BFF opens up the possibility to capture the abstract concept of fairness by means of assessments of concrete expert behavior. We expect that the questionnaire can thus contribute to quality assurance in this sensitive area.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44874,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"THERAPEUTISCHE UMSCHAU\",\"volume\":\"80 2\",\"pages\":\"78-84\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"THERAPEUTISCHE UMSCHAU\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1024/0040-5930/a001414\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"THERAPEUTISCHE UMSCHAU","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1024/0040-5930/a001414","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

医学评价质量评估中被保险人视角的整合在目前的医疗工作残疾评估和其他养恤金评估做法中,瑞士的被保险人无法定期提供反馈,说明他们感到受到医疗专家的尊严和尊重的程度,根据偶尔的投诉,情况似乎并非总是如此。为了能够系统地捕捉互动公平的这些方面,我们开发了一份问卷,巴塞尔公平问卷(BFQ)。BFQ包含30个语句,如“审稿人听取了我的意见。”,被保险人可以在四个层次上同意(从“我完全不同意”开始)。到“我完全同意”)。为了验证问卷,305名残疾养恤金申领人在其医疗工作残疾评估后完成了BFQ。对回答问题进行的因素分析证实了我们的假设,即BFQ问题涵盖了1)尊重和信任,2)参与,3)专家对案例的熟悉程度,以及4)评估过程的透明度。此外,我们的研究也证明了BFQ与其他问卷工具的发散效度和收敛效度。BFF开启了通过评估具体专家行为来捕捉公平抽象概念的可能性。因此,我们期望调查表能够对这一敏感领域的质量保证作出贡献。
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
[Integration of the Insured Person's Perspective in the Quality Assessment of Medical Evaluations].

Integration of the Insured Person's Perspective in the Quality Assessment of Medical Evaluations Abstract. In the current practice of medical work disability evaluations and other pension assessments, insured persons in Switzerland lack the possibility to routinely provide feedback on the extent to which they felt treated with dignity and respect by medical experts, which, according to occasional complaints, does not always seem to be the case. In order to be able to systematically capture such aspects of interactive fairness, we developed a questionnaire, the Basel Fairness Questionnaire (BFQ). The BFQ contains 30 statements such as «The reviewer listened to me.», which the insured person can agree to on four levels (from «I do not agree at all.» to «I fully agree.»). For validating the questionnaire, 305 claimants for disability pensions completed the BFQ after their medical work disability evaluation. A factor analysis conducted on the answered questions confirmed our assumption that the BFQ questions covered the areas of 1) respect and trust, 2) participation, 3) case familiarity of the expert, and 4) transparency of the evaluation process. Furthermore, our study demonstrated divergent and convergent validity of the BFQ with other questionnaire instruments. The BFF opens up the possibility to capture the abstract concept of fairness by means of assessments of concrete expert behavior. We expect that the questionnaire can thus contribute to quality assurance in this sensitive area.

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
THERAPEUTISCHE UMSCHAU
THERAPEUTISCHE UMSCHAU MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Monat für Monat ein aktuelles Thema der praktischen Medizin - als Sammlung ein hochaktuelles Nachschlagewerk.
期刊最新文献
[Calcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD) disease - more than just "pseudogout"]. [Gout - clinical presentation]. [Gout and Nutrition]. [Imaging in crystal arthropathies]. [Therapy of gout in 2024].
×
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