Engaging primary care professionals in OECD's international PaRIS survey: a documentary analysis.

Healthcare professionals have first-hand experience with patients in clinical practice and the dynamics in the healthcare system, which can be of great value in the design, implementation, data analysis and dissemination of research study results. Primary care professionals are particularly important as they provide first contact, accessible, coordinated, comprehensive and continuous people-focused care. However, in-depth examination of the engagement of health professionals in health system research and planning activities-how professionals are engaged and how this varies across national contexts- is limited, particularly in international initiatives. There is a need to identify gaps in the planning of engagement activities to inform the design and successful implementation of future international efforts to improve the responsiveness of health systems to the changing needs of patients and professionals. The aim of this study was to explore how primary care professionals were engaged in the design and implementation plans of an international health policy study led by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The OECD's international PaRIS survey measures and disseminates information on patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs) of people living with chronic conditions who are managed in primary care. A documentary analysis of 17 written national implementation plans (country roadmaps) was conducted between January and June 2023. Two reviewers independently performed the screening and data abstraction and resolved disagreements by discussion. We reported the intended target primary care professionals, phase of the study, channel of engagement, level of engagement, and purpose of engagement. All 17 countries aimed to engage primary care professionals in the execution plans for the international PaRIS survey. While organisations of primary care professionals, particularly of family doctors, were the most commonly targeted group, variation was found in the timing of engagement activities during the different phases of the study and in the level of engagement, ranging from co-development (half of the countries co-developed the survey together with primary care professionals) to one-off consultations with whom. International guidance facilitated the participation of primary care professionals. Continuous collaborative efforts at the international and national levels can foster a culture of engagement with primary care organisations and individual professionals and enhance meaningful engagement of primary care professionals.

International cross-cultural development and field testing of the primary care practice questionnaire for the PaRIS survey (PaRIS-PCPQ).

BACKGROUND: The PaRIS survey, an initiative of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), aims to assess health systems performance in delivering primary care by measuring the care experiences and outcomes of people over 45 who used primary care services in the past six months. In addition, linked data from primary care practices are collected to analyse how the organisation of primary care practices and their care processes impact care experiences and outcomes. This article describes the development and validation of the primary care practice questionnaire for the PaRIS survey, the PaRIS-PCPQ. METHOD: The PaRIS-PCPQ was developed based on domains of primary care practice and professional characteristics included in the PaRIS conceptual framework. Questionnaire development was conducted in four phases: (1) a multi-step consensus-based development of the source questionnaire, (2) translation of the English source questionnaire into 17 languages, (3) cross-national cognitive testing with primary care professionals in participating countries, and (4) cross-national field-testing. RESULTS: 70 items were selected from 7 existing questionnaires on primary care characteristics, of which 49 were included in a first draft. Feedback from stakeholders resulted in a modified 34-item version (practice profile, care coordination, chronic care management, patient follow-up, and respondent characteristics) designed to be completed online by medical or non-medical staff working in a primary care practice. Cognitive testing led to changes in the source questionnaire as well as to country specific localisations. The resulting 32-item questionnaire was piloted in an online survey and field test. Data from 540 primary care practices from 17 countries were collected and analysed. Final revision resulted in a 34-item questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: The cross-national development of a primary care practice questionnaire is challenging due to the differences in care delivery systems. Rigorous translation and cognitive testing as well as stakeholder engagement helped to overcome most challenges. The PaRIS-PCPQ will be used to assess how key characteristics of primary care practices relate to the care experiences and outcomes of people living with chronic conditions. As such, policymakers and care providers will be informed about the performance of primary care from the patient's perspective.

[Encuesta Internacional de Indicadores de Salud Referidos por los Pacientes: el protocolo del Estudio PaRIS en España.] / International Patient-Reported Indicators Surveys: The PaRIS study protocol in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: The PaRIS Survey is an initiative led by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in twenty-one countries, including Spain, to promote people-centred health care. The objective of the study aimed to describe PROMS and PREMS (Patient Reported Outcomes and Experience Measures, respectively) from patients who were in contact with Primary Care Centres, in order to establish a set of reliable, valid and internationally comparable indicators. METHODS: A cross-sectional study with two questionnaires will be carried out: one applied online for professionals from Primary Care Centres and another by telephone or online for patients aged forty-five and older of the same Health Care Centres. The domains covered are: characteristics of the Health Centre and of the professionals; sociodemographic characteristics of the patients; lifestyles; health care capacities; PROMs and PREMs. CONCLUSIONS: The study offers a unique opportunity to evaluate the health outcomes and experiences of the care received in Primary Care from patient's perspective. This information is essential to help policymakers better understand the performance of their health system and how it could be improved, particularly in relation to chronic care in Primary Care.

OBJETIVO: La Encuesta de Indicadores Referidos por los Pacientes (PaRIS, por sus siglas en inglés) es una iniciativa liderada por la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos en veintiún países, incluyendo España, para promover una atención sanitaria centrada en las personas. El objetivo del estudio fue describir los resultados en salud y las experiencias referidas por los pacientes (PROMs y PREMs, por sus siglas en inglés Patient Reported Outcomes and Experience Measures, respectivamente) que tuvieron contacto con los Centros de Atención Primaria (CAP), con la finalidad de establecer un conjunto de indicadores confiables, válidos e internacionalmente comparables. METODOS: Se realizará un estudio transversal, con dos cuestionarios: online para profesionales de los Centros de Atención Primaria y telefónico u online para los pacientes de cuarenta y cinco años y más, que acudieron a los CAP. Los dominios abarcados son: características del Centro de Atención Primaria y de los profesionales; características sociodemográficas de los pacientes; estilos de vida; capacidades; PROMs y PREMs. CONCLUSIONES: PaRIS ofrece una oportunidad para medir resultados de salud y las experiencias en Atención Primaria desde la perspectiva del paciente. Esta información es fundamental para ayudar a los gestores a comprender mejor el desempeño del sistema de salud y detectar posibilidades de mejora, particularmente en relación con la atención crónica.

Encuesta Internacional de Indicadores de Salud Referidos por los Pacientes: el protocolo del Estudio PaRIS en España / International Patient-Reported Indicators Surveys: The PaRIS study protocol in Spain

Fundamentos: La Encuesta de Indicadores Referidos por los Pacientes (PaRIS, por sus siglas en inglés) es una iniciativa liderada por la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos en veintiún países, incluyendo España, para promover una atención sanitaria centrada en las personas. El objetivo del estudio fue describir los resultados en salud y las experiencias referidas porlos pacientes (PROMs y PREMs, por sus siglas en inglésPatient Reported Outcomes and Experience Measures, respectivamente) quetuvieron contacto con los Centros de Atención Primaria (CAP), con la finalidad de establecer un conjunto de indicadores confiables,válidos e internacionalmente comparables. Métodos: Se realizará un estudio transversal, con dos cuestionarios: online para profesionales de los Centros de Atención Primaria y telefónico u online para los pacientes de cuarenta y cinco años y más, que acudieron a los CAP. Los dominios abarcados son: características del Centro de Atención Primaria y de los profesionales; características sociodemográficas de los pacientes; estilos devida; capacidades; PROMs y PREMs. Conclusiones: PaRIS ofrece una oportunidad para medir resultados de salud y las experiencias en Atención Primaria desde laperspectiva del paciente. Esta información es fundamental para ayudar a los gestores a comprender mejor el desempeño del sistemade salud y detectar posibilidades de mejora, particularmente en relación con la atención crónica.(AU)

Background: The PaRIS Survey is an initiative led by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in twenty-onecountries, including Spain, to promote people-centred health care. The objective of the study aimed to describe PROMS and PREMS(Patient Reported Outcomes and Experience Measures, respectively) from patients who were in contact with Primary Care Centres, inorder to establish a set of reliable, valid and internationally comparable indicators. Methods: A cross-sectional study with two questionnaires will be carried out: one applied online for professionals from Primary CareCentres and another by telephone or online for patients aged forty-five and older of the same Health Care Centres. The domains coveredare: characteristics of the Health Centre and of the professionals; sociodemographic characteristics of the patients; lifestyles; health carecapacities; PROMs and PREMs. Conclusions: The study offers a unique opportunity to evaluate the health outcomes and experiences of the care received inPrimary Care from patient’s perspective. This information is essential to help policymakers better understand the performance oftheir health system and how it could be improved, particularly in relation to chronic care in Primary Care.(AU)

Assessing the outcomes and experiences of care from the perspective of people living with chronic conditions, to support countries in developing people-centred policies and practices: study protocol of the International Survey of People Living with Chronic Conditions (PaRIS survey).

INTRODUCTION: In view of growing populations with chronic conditions, many countries are redesigning their health systems. However, little information is available about how health systems perform from the perspective of people living with chronic conditions. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Member States therefore mandated the OECD to initiate the International Survey of People Living with Chronic Conditions (PaRIS survey), which aims to provide insight in outcomes and experiences of care as reported by people living with chronic conditions. The PaRIS-SUR consortium has been tasked by the OECD to support the development and implementation of the survey. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: As primary care services play a pivotal role in the management of chronic conditions, the PaRIS survey will be implemented in the primary care setting. Data will be collected with a survey among users of primary care services aged 45 years or older, of whom many have chronic conditions. An additional survey is conducted among their primary care providers. The nested study design will allow analysis of the patient-reported data in relation to characteristics of and care provided by primary care providers within and across countries. In 2022, the survey will be tested in a Field Trial in participating countries. Data for cross-country comparison will be collected by the Main Survey in 2023. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Informed consent will be obtained from primary care providers and service users. National Project Managers search ethical approval of the survey in their country, if required. Reporting by the OECD will focus on questions for international comparison. A secured information technology platform will be developed for participants and stakeholders in countries to receive feedback and answer their own questions. Findings will also be disseminated through an international OECD flagship report, conferences, scientific papers and policy briefs, to inform strategies to improve care for people living with chronic conditions throughout the world.

A Standard Set of Value-Based Patient-Centered Outcomes and Measures of Overall Health in Adults.

BACKGROUND: The definition of population-specific outcomes is an essential precondition for the implementation of value-based health care. We developed a minimum standard outcome set for overall adult health (OAH) to facilitate the implementation of value-based health care in tracking, comparing, and improving overall health care outcomes of adults across multiple conditions, which would be of particular relevance for primary care and public health populations. METHODS: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) convened an international panel (patients, clinicians, and topic experts). Following the development of a conceptual framework, a modified Delphi method (supported by public consultations) was implemented to identify, in sequence, the relevant domains, the best instruments for measuring them, the timing of measurement, and the relevant adjustment variables. FINDINGS: Outcomes were identified in relation to overall health status and the domains of physical, mental, and social health. Three instruments covering these domains were identified: PROMIS Scale v1.2-Global Health (10 items), WHO Wellbeing Index (5 items), and the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (12 items). Case-mix variables included a range of sociodemographic and biometric measures. Yearly measurement was proposed for all outcomes and most case-mix variables. INTERPRETATION: The ICHOM OAH Standard Set has been developed through consensus-based methods based on predefined criteria following high standards for the identification and selection of high-quality measures The involvements of a wide range of stakeholders supports the acceptability of the set, which is readily available for use and feasibility testing in clinical settings.

Reporting health services research to a broader public: An exploration of inconsistencies and reporting inadequacies in societal publications.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the accuracy of societal publications (e.g. press releases, internet postings or professional journals) that are based on scientific work. This study investigates a) inconsistencies between scientific peer-reviewed health services research (HSR) publications and non-scientific societal publications and b) replication of reporting inadequacies from these scientific publications to corresponding societal publications. METHODS: A sample of HSR publications was drawn from 116 publications authored in 2016 by thirteen Dutch HSR institutions. Societal publications corresponding to scientific publications were identified through a systematic internet search. We conducted a qualitative, directed content analysis on societal publications derived from the scientific publications to assess both reporting inadequacies and determine inconsistencies. Descriptive frequencies were calculated for all variables. Odds ratios were used to investigate whether inconsistencies in societal publications were less likely when the first scientific author was involved. RESULTS: We identified 43 scientific and 156 societal publications. 94 societal publications (60.3%), (associated with 32 scientific publications (74.4%)) contained messages that were inconsistent with the scientific work. We found reporting inadequacies in 22 scientific publications (51.2%). In 45 societal publications (28.9%), we found replications of these reporting inadequacies. The likelihood of inconsistencies between scientific and societal publications did not differ when the latter explicitly involved the first scientific author, (OR = 1.44, CI: 0.76-2.74); were published on the institute's or funder's website, (OR = 1.32, CI: 0.57-3.06); published with no involvement of a scientific author, (OR = 0.52, CI: 0.25-1.07). CONCLUSION: To improve societal publications, one should examine both the consistency with scientific research publications and ways to prevent replication of scientific reporting inadequacies. HSR institutions, funders, and scientific and societal publication platforms should invest in a supportive publication culture to further incentivise the responsible and skilled involvement of researchers in writing both scientific and societal publications.

Dutch shared savings program targeted at primary care: Reduced expenditures in its first year.

In countries where GPs fulfill a central role in the health care system, like in the Netherlands, the lack of value-based incentives in GP payment systems may have negative consequences for value delivered in other parts of the health care spectrum. We evaluate an experiment in which GPs were allowed to share in savings in total health care expenditures, conditionally on achieving quality targets. At least in theory, these so-called 'shared savings contracts' incentivize GPs to become critical gatekeepers, coordinate the provision of care and substitute for specialist services when appropriate. This study evaluates a Dutch shared savings program targeted at GPs. This study employs a difference-in-differences design using a regional control group of non-participating GPs. We find that program participation led to savings in health care expenditures (-2%), while patient satisfaction was unaffected and while the results for other quality indicators were ambiguous. Additional analyses show that savings have been predominantly realized by lowering the volume of specialist care, and that almost every participating GP displayed cost-saving behavior. This finding suggests that shared savings contracts, even when added as a mere complemented to existing volume-based payment models, already elicit substantive effort to increase the value of health care provided.

The association between the workload of general practitioners and patient experiences with care: results of a cross-sectional study in 33 countries.

BACKGROUND: The workload of general practitioners (GPs) and dissatisfaction with work have been increasing in various Western countries over the past decades. In this study, we evaluate the relation between the workload of GPs and patients' experiences with care. METHODS: We collected data through a cross-sectional survey among 7031 GPs and 67,873 patients in 33 countries. Dependent variables are the patient experiences on doctor-patient communication, accessibility, continuity, and comprehensiveness of care. Independent variables concern the workload measured as the GP-reported work hours per week, average consultation times, job satisfaction (an indicator of subjective workload), and the difference between the workload measures of every GP and the average in their own country. Finally, we evaluated interaction effects between workload measures and what patients find important in a country and the presence of a patient-list system. Relationships were determined through multilevel regression models. RESULTS: Patients of GPs who are happier with their work were found to experience better communication, continuity, access, and comprehensiveness. When GPs are more satisfied compared to others in their country, patients also experience better quality. When GPs work more hours per week, patients also experience better quality of care, but not in the area of accessibility. A longer consultation time, also when compared to the national average, is only related to more comprehensive care. There are no differences in the relationships between countries with and without a patient list system and in countries where patients find the different quality aspects more important. CONCLUSIONS: Patients experience better care when their GP has more work hours, longer consultation times, and especially, a higher job satisfaction.

An expert-based mapping of healthcare system strategies to support rational drug prescribing in primary care across 13 European countries.

BACKGROUND: Irrational prescribing has received increasing attention among policy-makers to improve drug safety and effectiveness while avoiding economic waste. The policies intended to rationalise prescribing have been grouped by WHO under a taxonomy, classifying them into two types of strategies - (1) targeted approaches (micro level) and (2) system-oriented approaches (macro level). The extent to which countries implement strategies and the existing types is currently unknown. This paper explores the following research question via expert opinions: to what extent have European countries implemented strategies to support rational prescribing (targeted and system oriented) and what are the types implemented? METHODS: We assessed the available information on policies intended to promote rational prescribing. We used the WHO taxonomy to explore our research question as the basis for a standardised questionnaire. The data were collected between August 2018 and April 2019. The questionnaire consisted of questions that solicited the opinion of experts on the implementation of prescribing control mechanisms in primary care in their respective countries. Experts were identified through the literature and relevant networks. The questionnaire was sent to 17 identified country experts from 17 different countries; 15 responded and 13 were used in our analysis. Answers were validated through follow-up correspondence, interviews and presentation at an OECD meeting. RESULTS: Expert-reported data shows that all 13 countries included in our study have several mechanisms in place for enhancing rational prescribing in primary care. All approaches were reported to have been implemented in at least two countries. We identified two groups of countries, namely a small group of countries (n = 3) with fewer mechanisms in place and a larger group of countries (n = 10) with a large number of strategies with accompanying instruments at both the micro and macro levels. CONCLUSIONS: The data reported by the experts suggests that all 13 countries included in our study have several mechanisms in place for enhancing rational prescribing in primary care on both the micro and macro levels. With respect to the extent of mechanisms being in place, two groups of countries were identified. This initial mapping of strategies forms a basis for more in-depth research to be able to assess the impact of bundles of strategies on system and targeted level on rational drug prescribing in primary care in Europe.

Individual, institutional, and scientific environment factors associated with questionable research practices in the reporting of messages and conclusions in scientific health services research publications.

BACKGROUND: Health Services Research findings (HSR) reported in scientific publications may become part of the decision-making process on healthcare. This study aimed to explore associations between researcher's individual, institutional, and scientific environment factors and the occurrence of questionable research practices (QRPs) in the reporting of messages and conclusions in scientific HSR publications. METHODS: We employed a mixed-methods study design. We identified factors possibly contributing to QRPs in the reporting of messages and conclusions through a literature review, 14 semi-structured interviews with HSR institutional leaders, and 13 focus-groups amongst researchers. A survey corresponding with these factors was developed and shared with 172 authors of 116 scientific HSR publications produced by Dutch research institutes in 2016. We assessed the included publications for the occurrence of QRPs. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to identify factors within individual, institutional, and environmental domains. Next, we conducted bivariate analyses using simple Poisson regression to explore factors' association with the number of QRPs in the assessed HSR publications. Factors related to QRPs with a p-value < .30 were included in four multivariate models tested through a multiple Poisson regression. RESULTS: In total, 78 (45%) participants completed the survey (51.3% first authors and 48.7% last authors). Twelve factors were included in the multivariate analyses. In all four multivariate models, a higher score of "pressure to create societal impact" (Exp B = 1.28, 95% CI [1.11, 1.47]), was associated with higher number of QRPs. Higher scores on "specific training" (Exp B = 0.85, 95% CI [0.77-0.94]) and "co-author conflict of interest" (Exp B = 0.85, 95% CI [0.75-0.97]) factors were associated with a lower number of QRPs. Stratification between first and last authors indicated different factors were related to the occurrence of QRPs for these groups. CONCLUSION: Experienced pressure to create societal impact is associated with more QRPs in the reporting of messages and conclusions in HSR publications. Specific training in reporting messages and conclusions and awareness of co-author conflict of interests are related to fewer QRPs. Our results should stimulate awareness within the field of HSR internationally on opportunities to better support reporting in scientific HSR publications.

Figure Interpretation Assessment Tool-Health (FIAT-health) 2.0: from a scoring instrument to a critical appraisal tool.

BACKGROUND: Statistics are frequently used in health advocacy to attract attention, but are often misinterpreted. The Figure Interpretation Assessment Tool-Health (FIAT-Health) 1.0 was developed to support systematic assessment of the interpretation of figures on health and health care. This study aimed to test and evaluate the FIAT-Health 1.0 amongst its intended user groups, and further refine the tool based on our results. METHODS: Potential users (N = 32) were asked to assess one publicly reported figure using the FIAT-Health 1.0, and to justify their assessments and share their experience in using the FIAT-Health. In total four figures were assessed. For each figure, an expert on the specific topic (N = 4) provided a comparative assessment. The consistency of the answers was calculated, and answers to the evaluation questions were qualitatively analysed. A qualitative comparative analysis of the justifications for assessment by the experts and potential users was made. Based on the results, a new version of the FIAT-Health was developed and tested by employees (N = 27) of the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), and approved by the project's advisory group. In total sixty-three participants contributed. RESULTS: Potential users using the FIAT-Health 1.0 and experts gave similar justifications for their assessments. The justifications provided by experts aligned with the items of the FIAT-Health. Seventeen out of twenty-six dichotomous questions were consistently answered by the potential users. Numerical assessment questions showed inconsistencies in how potential users responded. In the evaluation, potential users most frequently mentioned that thanks to its structured approach, the FIAT-Health contributed to their awareness of the main characteristics of the figure (n = 14), but they did find the tool complex (n = 11). The FIAT-Health 1.0 was revised from a scoring instrument into a critical appraisal tool: the FIAT-Health 2.0, which was tested and approved by employees of the RIVM and the advisory group. CONCLUSION: The tool was refined according to the results of the test and evaluation, transforming the FIAT-Health from a quantitative scoring instrument into an online qualitative appraisal tool that has the potential to aid the better interpretation and public reporting of statistics on health and healthcare.

Statistics in Dutch policy debates on health and healthcare.

BACKGROUND: The notion of 'fact-free politics' is debated in Europe and the United States of America and has particular relevance for the use of evidence to underpin health and healthcare policies. To better understand how evidence on health and healthcare is used in the national policy-making process in the Netherlands, we explore how different statistics are used in various policy debates on health and healthcare in the Dutch government and parliament. METHODS: We chose eight ongoing policy debates as case studies representing the subject categories of morbidity, lifestyle, healthcare expenditure and healthcare outcomes, including (1) breast cancer screening rates, prevalence and incidence, (2) dementia prevalence and incidence, (3) prevalence of alcohol use by pregnant women, (4) mobility and school sports participation in children, (5) costs of smoking, (6) Dutch national healthcare expenditure, (7) hospital mortality rates, and (8) bedsore prevalence. Using selected keywords for each policy debate case, we performed a document search to identify documentation of the debates (2014-2016) on the websites of the Dutch government and parliament. We retrieved 163 documents and examined the policy debate cases through a content analyses approach. RESULTS: Sources of the statistics used in policy debates were primarily government funded. We identified two distinct functions, i.e. rhetorical and managerial use of statistics. The function of the debate is rhetorical when the specific statistic is used for agenda-setting or to convince the reader of the importance of a topic. The function of the debate is managerial when statistics determine planning, monitoring or evaluation of policy. When evaluating a specific policy, applied statistics were mostly the result of routine or standardised data collection. When policy-makers use statistics for a managerial function, the policy debate mirrors terms derived from scientific debates. CONCLUSION: While statistics used for rhetorical functions do not seem to invite critical reflection, when the function of the debate is managerial, i.e. to plan, monitor or evaluate healthcare, their construction does receive attention. Considering the current role of statistics in rhetorical and managerial debates, there is a need to be cautious of too much leniency towards the technocratic process in exchange for the democratic debate.

Occurrence and nature of questionable research practices in the reporting of messages and conclusions in international scientific Health Services Research publications: a structured assessment of publications authored by researchers in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: Explore the occurrence and nature of questionable research practices (QRPs) in the reporting of messages and conclusions in international scientific Health Services Research (HSR) publications authored by researchers from HSR institutions in the Netherlands. DESIGN: In a joint effort to assure the overall quality of HSR publications in the Netherlands, 13 HSR institutions in the Netherlands participated in this study. Together with these institutions, we constructed and validated an assessment instrument covering 35 possible QRPs in the reporting of messages and conclusions. Two reviewers independently assessed a random sample of 116 HSR articles authored by researchers from these institutions published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals in 2016. SETTING: Netherlands, 2016. SAMPLE: 116 international peer-reviewed HSR publications. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Median number of QRPs per publication, the percentage of publications with observed QRP frequencies, occurrence of specific QRPs and difference in total number of QRPs by methodological approach, type of research and study design. RESULTS: We identified a median of six QRPs per publication out of 35 possible QRPs. QRPs occurred most frequently in the reporting of implications for practice, recommendations for practice, contradictory evidence, study limitations and conclusions based on the results and in the context of the literature. We identified no differences in total number of QRPs in papers based on different methodological approach, type of research or study design. CONCLUSIONS: Given the applied nature of HSR, both the severity of the identified QRPs, and the recommendations for policy and practice in HSR publications warrant discussion. We recommend that the HSR field further define and establish its own scientific norms in publication practices to improve scientific reporting and strengthen the impact of HSR. The results of our study can serve as an empirical basis for continuous critical reflection on the reporting of messages and conclusions.

Are people's health care needs better met when primary care is strong? A synthesis of the results of the QUALICOPC study in 34 countries.

AIM: This article synthesises the results of a large international study on primary care (PC), the QUALICOPC study. BACKGROUND: Since the Alma Ata Declaration, strengthening PC has been high on the policy agenda. PC is associated with positive health outcomes, but it is unclear how care processes and structures relate to patient experiences. METHODS: Survey data were collected during 2011-2013 from approximately 7000 PC physicians and 70 000 patients in 34, mainly European, countries. The data on the patients are linked to data on the PC physicians within each country and analysed using multilevel modelling. FINDINGS: Patients had more positive experiences when their PC physician provided a broader range of services. However, a broader range of services is also associated with higher rates of hospitalisations for uncontrolled diabetes, but rates of avoidable diabetes-related hospitalisations were lower in countries where patients had a continuous relationship with PC physicians. Additionally, patients with a long-term relationship with their PC physician were less likely to attend the emergency department. Capitation payment was associated with more positive patient experiences. Mono- and multidisciplinary co-location was related to improved processes in PC, but the experiences of patients visiting multidisciplinary practices were less positive. A stronger national PC structure and higher overall health care expenditures are related to more favourable patient experiences for continuity and comprehensiveness. The study also revealed inequities: patients with a migration background reported less positive experiences. People with lower incomes more often postponed PC visits for financial reasons. Comprehensive and accessible care processes are related to less postponement of care. CONCLUSIONS: The study revealed room for improvement related to patient-reported experiences and highlighted the importance of core PC characteristics including a continuous doctor-patient relationship as well as a broad range of services offered by PC physicians.

Patients' perception of communication at the interface between primary and secondary care: a cross-sectional survey in 34 countries.

BACKGROUND: Poor communication between general practitioners (GPs) and medical specialists can lead to poorer quality, and continuity, of care. Our study aims to assess patients' perceptions of communication at the interface between primary and secondary care in 34 countries. It will analyse, too, whether this communication is associated with the organisation of primary care within a country, and with the characteristics of GPs and their patients. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey among patients in 34 countries. Following a GP consultation, patients were asked two questions. Did they take to understand that their GP had informed medical specialists about their illness upon referral? And, secondly, did their GP know the results of the treatment by a medical specialist? We used multi-response logistic multilevel models to investigate the association of factors related to primary care, the GP, and the patient, with the patients' perceptions of communication at the interface between primary and secondary care. RESULTS: In total, 61,931 patients completed the questionnaire. We found large differences between countries, in both the patients' perceptions of information shared by GPs with medical specialists, and the patients' perceptions of the GPs' awareness of the results of treatment by medical specialists. Patients whose GPs stated that they 'seldom or never' send referral letters, also less frequently perceived that their GP communicated with their medical specialists about their illness. Patients with GPs indicating they 'seldom or never' receive feedback from medical specialists, indicated less frequently that their GP would know the results of treatment by a medical specialist. Moreover, patients with a personal doctor perceived higher rates of communication in both directions at the interface between primary and secondary care. CONCLUSION: Generally, patients perceive there to be high rates of communication at the interface between primary and secondary care, but there are large differences between countries. Policies aimed at stimulating personal doctor arrangements could, potentially, enhance the continuity of care between primary and secondary care.

Shared decision making between patient and GP about referrals from primary care: Does gatekeeping make a difference?

Primary care faces challenging times in many countries, mainly caused by an ageing population. The GPs' role to match patients' demand with medical need becomes increasingly complex with the growing multiple conditions population. Shared decision-making (SDM) is recognized as ideal to the treatment decision making process. Understanding GPs' perception on SDM about patient referrals and whether patients' preferences are considered, becomes increasingly important for improving health outcomes and patient satisfaction. This study aims to 1) understand whether countries vary in how GPs perceive SDM, in patients' referral, 2) describe to what extent SDM in GPs' referrals differ between gatekeeping and non-gatekeeping systems, and 3) identify what factors GPs consider when referring to specialists and describing how this differs between gatekeeping and non-gatekeeping systems. Data were collected between October 2011 and December 2013 in 32 countries through the QUALICOPC study (Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe). The first question was answered by assessing GPs' perception on who takes the referral decision. For the second question, a multilevel logistic model was applied. For the third question we analysed the GPs' responses on what patient logistics and need arguments they consider in the referral process. We found: 1) variation in GPs reported SDM- 90% to 35%, 2) a negative correlation between gatekeeper systems and SDM-however, some countries strongly deviate and 3) GPs in gatekeeper systems more often consider patient interests, whereas in non-gatekeeping countries the GP's value more own experience with specialists and benchmarking information. Our findings imply that GPs in gatekeeper systems seem to be less inclined to SDM than GPs in a non-gatekeeping system. The relation between gatekeeping/non-gatekeeping and SDM is not straightforward. A more contextualized approach is needed to understand the relation between gatekeeping as a system design feature and its relation with and/or impact on SDM.

Improving interpretation of publically reported statistics on health and healthcare: the Figure Interpretation Assessment Tool (FIAT-Health).

BACKGROUND: Policy-makers, managers, scientists, patients and the general public are confronted daily with figures on health and healthcare through public reporting in newspapers, webpages and press releases. However, information on the key characteristics of these figures necessary for their correct interpretation is often not adequately communicated, which can lead to misinterpretation and misinformed decision-making. The objective of this research was to map the key characteristics relevant to the interpretation of figures on health and healthcare, and to develop a Figure Interpretation Assessment Tool-Health (FIAT-Health) through which figures on health and healthcare can be systematically assessed, allowing for a better interpretation of these figures. METHODS: The abovementioned key characteristics of figures on health and healthcare were identified through systematic expert consultations in the Netherlands on four topic categories of figures, namely morbidity, healthcare expenditure, healthcare outcomes and lifestyle. The identified characteristics were used as a frame for the development of the FIAT-Health. Development of the tool and its content was supported and validated through regular review by a sounding board of potential users. RESULTS: Identified characteristics relevant for the interpretation of figures in the four categories relate to the figures' origin, credibility, expression, subject matter, population and geographical focus, time period, and underlying data collection methods. The characteristics were translated into a set of 13 dichotomous and 4-point Likert scale questions constituting the FIAT-Health, and two final assessment statements. Users of the FIAT-Health were provided with a summary overview of their answers to support a final assessment of the correctness of a figure and the appropriateness of its reporting. CONCLUSIONS: FIAT-Health can support policy-makers, managers, scientists, patients and the general public to systematically assess the quality of publicly reported figures on health and healthcare. It also has the potential to support the producers of health and healthcare data in clearly communicating their data to different audiences. Future research should focus on the further validation of the tool in practice.

Do effects of common case-mix adjusters on patient experiences vary across patient groups?

BACKGROUND: Many survey studies in health care adjust for demographic characteristics such as age, gender, educational attainment and general health when performing statistical analyses. Whether the effects of these demographic characteristics are consistent between patient groups remains to be determined. This is important as the rationale for adjustment is often that demographic sub-groups differ in their so-called 'response tendency'. This rationale may be less convincing if the effects of response tendencies vary across patient groups. The present paper examines whether the impact of these characteristics on patients' global rating of care varies across patient groups. METHODS: Secondary analyses using multi-level regression models were performed on a dataset including 32 different patient groups and 145,578 observations. For each demographic variable, the 95% expected range of case-mix coefficients across patient groups is presented. In addition, we report whether the variance of coefficients for demographic variables across patient groups is significant. RESULTS: Overall, men, elderly, lower educated people and people in good health tend to give higher global ratings. However, these effects varied significantly across patient groups and included the possibility of no effect or an opposite effect in some patient groups. CONCLUSION: The response tendency attributed to demographic characteristics - such as older respondents being milder, or higher educated respondents being more critical - is not general or universal. As such, the mechanism linking demographic characteristics to survey results on patient experiences with quality of care is more complicated than a general response tendency. It is possible that the response tendency interacts with patient group, but it is also possible that other mechanisms are at play.

Cost Variation in Diabetes Care across Dutch Care Groups?

OBJECTIVE: The introduction of bundled payment for diabetes care in the Netherlands led to the origination of care groups. This study explored to what extent variation in health care costs per patient can be attributed to the performance of care groups. Furthermore, the commonly applied simple mean aggregation was compared with the more advanced generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) to benchmark health care costs per patient between care groups. DATA SOURCE: Dutch 2009 nationwide insurance claims data of diabetes type 2 patients (104,544 patients, 50 care groups). STUDY DESIGN: Both a simple mean aggregation and a GLMM approach was applied to rank care groups, using two different health care costs variables: total treatment health care costs and diabetes-specific specialist care costs per diabetes patient. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Care groups varied slightly in the first and mainly in the second indicator. Care group variation was not explained by composition. Although the ranking methods were correlated, some care groups' rank positions differed, with consequences on the top-10 and the low-10 positions. CONCLUSIONS: Differences between care groups exist when an appropriate indicator and a sophisticated aggregation technique is used. Currently applied benchmarking may have unfair consequences for some care groups.