Search results

Introduction: Our objective, within the collaborative study SPHERE (Strengthening Public Health Research in Europe) is to give an overview of health services and health systems research in Europe, based on a search of the literature in PubMed and Embase. Method: The method used in this study consisted of: (i) A bibliometric analysis, and (ii) Classification of health services and systems research according to pre-defined criteria for a sample of 500 publications in the PubMed search. Results: Health services research is particularly strong in the Nordic countries. The number of publications on health services research has increased steadily between 1996 and 2004, 60% of the references found had a keyword related to 'patient'. More than one-third of the references had a keyword related to 'hospital'. The keyword 'general practitioner' occurred in 16% of the cases. The emphasis on this keyword was higher in those countries where the GP traditionally holds a strong position, but also in the new member states, Estonia and Slovenia. Of a smaller sample classified in depth; 57% addressed problems of efficiency and quality improvement; 27% focused on the organization of health care, cohesion and arrangement of supply according to needs and demands; only 10% addressed problems of inequalities and distribution of services. Conclusions: Health services research is a growing domain of research. As an applied discipline, health services research can be expected to closely follow political agendas. The majority of studies focus on improving the efficiency and quality of the system. Only 10% of the studies address inequalities in health utilization.

BACKGROUND: Faced with growing budget pressure, policymakers worldwide recognize the necessity of strategic disinvestment from ineffective, inefficient or harmful medical practices. However, disinvestment programs face substantial social, political and cultural challenges: mistrust, struggles for clinical autonomy or stakeholders' reluctance to engage in what can be perceived as 'rationing'. Academic literature says little about effective strategies to address these challenges. This paper provides insights on this matter. We analyzed the epistemic work of a group of policymakers at the National Health Care Institute on what was initially a disinvestment initiative within the context of the Dutch basic benefits package: the 'Appropriate Care' program. The Institute developed a strategy using national administrative data to identify and tackle low-value care covered from public funds as well as potential underuse, and achieve savings through improved organization of efficiency and quality in health care delivery. How did the Institute deal with the socio-political sensitivities associated with disinvestment by means of their epistemic work? METHOD: We conducted ethnographic research into the National Health Care Institute's epistemic practices. Research entailed document analysis, non-participant observation, in-depth conversations, and interviews with key-informants. RESULTS: The Institute dealt with the socio-political sensitivities associated with disinvestment by democratizing the epistemic practices to identify low-value care, by warranting data analysis by clinical experts, by creating an epistemic safe space for health care professionals who were the object of research into low-value care, and by de-emphasizing the economization measure. Ultimately, this epistemic work facilitated a collaborative construction of problems relating to low-value care practices and their solutions. CONCLUSIONS: This case shows that - apart from the right data and adequate expertise - disinvestment requires clinical leadership ...

AbstractIn this article we examine the fragmented interpretation and implementation of a remarkably popular concept, value‐based health care (VBHC). By building on a case study of a project team working on the development of value‐based primary care services for elderly patients, we shed new light on the way in which VBHC transitions from theory to practice. The concept of 'translation' is used to theoretically frame our analysis. Between June 2021 and May 2022, we gathered data through participant observation (50 h), semi‐structured interviews (n = 20) and document analysis (n = 16). Our findings show how VBHC inspired new ways of working, and that, in line with previous studies, parts of the original concept have been neglected, while others have been modified. We identified three reasons for VBHC's locally varied applications: VBHC transforms to enable a growing support base, the originally radical idea is applied conservatively and the concept tends to get mixed up with other policy objectives. In all, VBHC appears to be successful in catalysing cross‐disciplinary interaction aimed at improving value for patients.

In this paper, we explore how multiple accountability (MA) can enable an independent regulatory agency to deal with multiple conflicting public values in a complex and politically salient decision-making process. We examined the decision-making process of the Dutch National Health Care Institute on quality regulation of emergency care in the Netherlands. Using insights derived from ethnography, document analysis, and interviews, we show that MA resulted from strategic interactions between the Institute's vertical and horizontal accountability forums. We argue that MA impeded efficiency but also enabled the Institute to deal with multiple conflicting public values.

In this paper, we explore how multiple accountability (MA) can enable an independent regulatory agency to deal with multiple conflicting public values in a complex and politically salient decision-making process. We examined the decision-making process of the Dutch National Health Care Institute on quality regulation of emergency care in the Netherlands. Using insights derived from ethnography, document analysis, and interviews, we show that MA resulted from strategic interactions between the Institute's vertical and horizontal accountability forums. We argue that MA impeded efficiency but also enabled the Institute to deal with multiple conflicting public values.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: This paper examines a remarkable dispute between Dutch insurers, hospitals, doctors, and patients about a set of quality indicators. In 2013, private insurers planned to drastically reform Dutch emergency care using quality indicators they had formulated drawing from clinical guidelines, RCTs, and systematic reviews. Insurers' plans caused much debate in the field of emergency care. As quality indicators have come to play a more central role in health care governance, the questions what constitutes good evidence for them, how they ought to be used, and who controls them have become politically and morally charged. This paper is a case study of how a Dutch public knowledge institution, the National Health Care Institute, intervened in this dispute and how they addressed these questions. METHOD: We conducted ethnographic research into the knowledge work of the National Health Care Institute. Research entailed document analysis, participant observation, in-depth conversations, and formal interviews with 5 key-informants. RESULTS: The National Health Care Institute problematized not only the evidence supporting insurers' indicators, but also-and especially-the scope, purpose, and use of the indicators. Our analysis shows the institute's struggle to reconcile the technical rationality of quality indicators with their social and political implications in practice. The institute deconstructed quality indicators as national standards and, instead, promoted the use of indicators in dialogue with stakeholders and their local and contextual knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Even if quality indicators are based on scientific evidence, they are not axiomatically good or useful. Both proponents and critics of Evidence-based Medicine always feared uncritical use of evidence by third parties. For non-medical parties who have no access to primary care processes, the type of standardized knowledge professed by Evidence-based Medicine provides the easiest way to gain insights into "what works" in clinical ...

Rationale, aims, and objectives This paper examines a remarkable dispute between Dutch insurers, hospitals, doctors, and patients about a set of quality indicators. In 2013, private insurers planned to drastically reform Dutch emergency care using quality indicators they had formulated drawing from clinical guidelines, RCTs, and systematic reviews. Insurers' plans caused much debate in the field of emergency care. As quality indicators have come to play a more central role in health care governance, the questions what constitutes good evidence for them, how they ought to be used, and who controls them have become politically and morally charged. This paper is a case study of how a Dutch public knowledge institution, the National Health Care Institute, intervened in this dispute and how they addressed these questions. Method We conducted ethnographic research into the knowledge work of the National Health Care Institute. Research entailed document analysis, participant observation, in-depth conversations, and formal interviews with 5 key-informants. Results The National Health Care Institute problematized not only the evidence supporting insurers' indicators, but also-and especially-the scope, purpose, and use of the indicators. Our analysis shows the institute's struggle to reconcile the technical rationality of quality indicators with their social and political implications in practice. The institute deconstructed quality indicators as national standards and, instead, promoted the use of indicators in dialogue with stakeholders and their local and contextual knowledge. Conclusions Even if quality indicators are based on scientific evidence, they are not axiomatically good or useful. Both proponents and critics of Evidence-based Medicine always feared uncritical use of evidence by third parties. For non-medical parties who have no access to primary care processes, the type of standardized knowledge professed by Evidence-based Medicine provides the easiest way to gain insights into "what works" in clinical ...

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: This paper examines a remarkable dispute between Dutch insurers, hospitals, doctors, and patients about a set of quality indicators. In 2013, private insurers planned to drastically reform Dutch emergency care using quality indicators they had formulated drawing from clinical guidelines, RCTs, and systematic reviews. Insurers' plans caused much debate in the field of emergency care. As quality indicators have come to play a more central role in health care governance, the questions what constitutes good evidence for them, how they ought to be used, and who controls them have become politically and morally charged. This paper is a case study of how a Dutch public knowledge institution, the National Health Care Institute, intervened in this dispute and how they addressed these questions. METHOD: We conducted ethnographic research into the knowledge work of the National Health Care Institute. Research entailed document analysis, participant observation, in‐depth conversations, and formal interviews with 5 key‐informants. RESULTS: The National Health Care Institute problematized not only the evidence supporting insurers' indicators, but also—and especially—the scope, purpose, and use of the indicators. Our analysis shows the institute's struggle to reconcile the technical rationality of quality indicators with their social and political implications in practice. The institute deconstructed quality indicators as national standards and, instead, promoted the use of indicators in dialogue with stakeholders and their local and contextual knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Even if quality indicators are based on scientific evidence, they are not axiomatically good or useful. Both proponents and critics of Evidence‐based Medicine always feared uncritical use of evidence by third parties. For non‐medical parties who have no access to primary care processes, the type of standardized knowledge professed by Evidence‐based Medicine provides the easiest way to gain insights into "what works" in clinical ...

Abstract Background Accounting for the patients' perspective on quality of care has become increasingly important in the development of Evidence Based Medicine as well as in governmental policies. In the Netherlands the Consumer Quality (CQ) Index has been developed to measure the quality of care from the patients' perspective in different healthcare sectors in a standardized manner. Although the scientific accountability of anthroposophic healthcare as a form of integrative medicine is growing, patient experiences with anthroposophic healthcare have not been measured systematically. In addition, the specific anthroposophic aspects are not measured by means of existing CQ Indexes. To enable accountability of quality of the anthroposophic healthcare from the patients' perspective the aim of this study is the construction and validation of a CQ Index for anthroposophic healthcare. Method Construction in three phases: Phase 1. Determining anthroposophic quality aspects: literature study and focus groups. Phase 2. Adding new questions and validating the new questionnaire. Research population: random sample from 7910 patients of 22 anthroposophic GPs. Data collection: survey, mixed mode by means of the Dillman method. Measuring instrument: experience questionnaire: CQ Index General Practice (56 items), added with 27 new anthroposophic items added and an item-importance questionnaire (anthroposophic items only). Statistical analyses: Factor analysis, scale construction, internal consistency (Chronbach's Alpha), inter-item-correlation, discriminative ability (Intra Class Correlation) and inter-factor-correlations. Phase 3. Modulation and selection of new questions based on results. Criteria of retaining items: general: a limited amount of items, statistical: part of a reliable scale and inter-item-correlation <0,7, and theoretical. Results Phase 1. 27 anthroposophic items. Phase 2. Two new anthroposophic scales: Scale AntroposophicTreatmentGP: seven items, Alpha=0,832, ICC=4,2 Inter-factor-correlation with existing GP-scales range from r=0,24 (Accessibility) to r=0,56 (TailoredCare). Scale InteractionalStyleGP: five items, Alpha=0,810, ICC=5,8, Inter-factor-correlation with existing GP-scales range from r=0,32 (Accessibility) to r=0,76 (TailoredCare). Inter-factor-correlation between new scales: r=0,50. Phase 3: Adding both scales and four single items. Removing eleven items and reformulating two items. Conclusion The CQ Index Anthroposophic Healthcare measures patient experiences with anthroposophic GP's validly and reliably. Regarding the inter-factor-correlations anthroposophic quality aspects from the patients' perspective are mostly .

AbstractPeople with Down syndrome have complex health care needs which are not always fully met. Health care improvements are required to better meet these needs. Quality indicators are an important tool for improving health care. However, quality indicators for health care for people with Down syndrome are scarce. Existing quality indicators focus on medical (physical) needs or the clinical setting, even though it is acknowledged that quality measures should reflect the total of quality aspects relevant to the population at stake, which may encompass aspects beyond the medical domain. These aspects beyond the medical domain are the focus of the current paper, which aims to provide insight into the way people with Down syndrome live their lives, how health care may fit in, and how this may impact the development of quality indicators. The paper is based on data originating from interviews with people with Down syndrome and their parents as well as focus groups with support staff members working in assisted living facilities for people with intellectual disability. The data revealed a lot of variation in how people with Down syndrome live their lives. Nevertheless, we were able to identify 11 topics, which we grouped into three overarching themes: (1) Being different yet living a normal life; (2) Down syndrome‐(un)friendly society and services; and (3) family perspective. The variation in our data stresses the importance of health care that takes a person's life into account beyond the medical domain, as exemplified by the identified topics. Our findings also show that a good life is not merely depending on good health care supported by well‐defined quality indicators, but on (support in) all life domains.

AbstractBackgroundPeople with Down syndrome (PDS) have complex healthcare needs. Little is known about the quality of health care for PDS, let alone how it is appraised by PDS and their caregivers. This study explores the perspectives of PDS, their parents and support staff regarding quality in health care for PDS.MethodThe present authors conducted semi‐structured interviews with 18 PDS and 15 parents, and focus groups with 35 support staff members (of PDS residing in assisted living facilities) in the Netherlands.ResultsAccording to the participants, healthcare quality entails well‐coordinated health care aligned with other support and care systems, a person‐centred and holistic approach, including respect, trust and provider–patient communication adapted to the abilities of PDS.ConclusionsOur findings may be used to improve health care for PDS, and provide insight into how health care could match the specific needs of PDS.

Public health draws from a range of academic disciplines, social, medical and statistical, and answers questions relevant to improving the health of populations. We have initiated a Europe‐wide study, Strengthening Public Health Research in Europe, to assess the development and use of public health research in both public policy and local decision making. The contemporary challenge for public health research is to integrate the capabilities of different academic disciplines to address policies for health. We have considered the development of public health research in five fields: political epidemiology, community health, health services, economics, and evaluation evidence and synthesis. The organisation and funding of research in Europe should be able to support new research fields and issues, to contribute to policy development and public health practice.

Public health draws from a range of academic disciplines, social, medical and statistical, and answers questions relevant to improving the health of populations. We have initiated a Europe-wide study, Strengthening Public Health Research in Europe, to assess the development and use of public health research in both public policy and local decision making. The contemporary challenge for public health research is to integrate the capabilities of different academic disciplines to address policies for health. We have considered the development of public health research in five fields: political epidemiology, community health, health services, economics, and evaluation evidence and synthesis. The organisation and funding of research in Europe should be able to support new research fields and issues, to contribute to policy development and public health practice. ; European Union.