[Do laymen understand information about hospital quality? An empirical verification using risk-adjusted mortality rates as an example].
Emmert M, Kolb B, Taheri-Zadeh F, Patzelt C, Sander U (2017)
Publication Status: Published
Publication Type: Journal article
Publication year: 2017
Journal
Book Volume: 127-128
Pages Range: 21-29
DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2017.09.010
Abstract
INTRODUCTION\nThe effect of public reporting to improve quality in healthcare is reduced by the limited intelligibility of information about the quality of healthcare providers. This may result in worse health-related choices especially for older people and those with lower levels of education. There is, as yet, little information as to whether laymen understand the concepts behind quality comparisons and if this comprehension is correlated with hospital choices.\nMETHODS\nAn instrument with 20 items was developed to analyze the intelligibility of five technical terms which were used in German hospital report cards to explain risk-adjusted death rates. Two online presentations of risk-adjusted death rates for five hospitals in the style of hospital report cards were developed. An online survey of 353 volunteers tested the comprehension of the risk-adjusted mortality rates and included an experimental hospital choice.\nRESULTS\nThe intelligibility of five technical terms was tested: risk-adjusted, actual and expected death rate, reference range and national average. The percentages of correct answers for the five technical terms were in the range of 75.0-60.2%. Between 23.8% and 5.1% of the respondents were not able to answer the question about the technical term itself. The least comprehensible technical terms were "risk-adjusted death rate" and "reference range". The intelligibility of the 20 items that were used to test the comprehension of the risk-adjusted mortality was between 89.5% and 14.2%. The two items that proved to be least comprehensible were related to the technical terms "risk-adjusted death rate" and "reference range". For all five technical terms it was found that a better comprehension correlated significantly with better hospital choices.\nDISCUSSION\nWe found a better than average intelligibility for the technical terms "actual and expected death rate" and for "national average". The least understandable were "risk-adjusted death rate" and "reference range". Since the self-explanatory technical terms "actual and expected death rate" and "national average" are easy to understand and the comprehension is correlated with hospitals choices, we recommend using them for the presentation of measures which contain risk-adjusted mortality. The technical terms "risk-adjusted death rate" and "reference range" should stay in the background, since comprehension problems can be expected and explanations would have to be provided.
Authors with CRIS profile
Martin Emmert
Juniorprofessur für Versorgungsmanagement
Benjamin Kolb
Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Gesundheitsmanagement
Involved external institutions
Germany (DE)How to cite
APA:
Emmert, M., Kolb, B., Taheri-Zadeh, F., Patzelt, C., & Sander, U. (2017). [Do laymen understand information about hospital quality? An empirical verification using risk-adjusted mortality rates as an example]. Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen, 127-128, 21-29. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2017.09.010
MLA:
Emmert, Martin, et al. "[Do laymen understand information about hospital quality? An empirical verification using risk-adjusted mortality rates as an example]." Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen 127-128 (2017): 21-29.
BibTeX: Download