Consumers’ interpretation and use of comparative information on the quality of health care
The effect of presentation approaches
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19508487 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Olga C Damman (0000-0002-4482-5042, Dutch Health Care Inspectorate), Michelle Hendriks (0000-0002-7924-6294, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research), Jany Rademakers (0000-0003-2742-4543, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research), Peter Spreeuwenberg (Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research), Diana Delnoij (0000-0002-2066-9604, Tilburg University), Diana M J Delnoij, Peter P Groenewegen, Peter Groenewegen (0000-0003-2127-8442, Utrecht University) |
| Year | 2012 |
| Volume | 15 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 197-211 |
| Publication date | 2012-06-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Health Expectations (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1369-6513 • E-ISSN: 1369-7625 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00671.x |
| PMID | 21615637 |
| OpenAlex | W2126591679 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
| References cited | 53 |
Background Public reports about health‐care quality have not been effectively used by consumers thus far. A possible explanation is inadequate presentation of the information. Objective To assess which presentation features contribute to consumers’ correct interpretation and effective use of comparative health‐care quality information and to examine the influence of consumer characteristics. Design Fictitious Consumer Quality Index (CQI) data on home care quality were used to construct experimental presentation formats of comparative information. These formats were selected using conjoint analysis methodology. We used multilevel regression analysis to investigate the effects of presenting bar charts and star ratings, ordering of the data, type of stars, number of stars and inclusion of a global rating. Setting and participants Data were collected during 2 weeks of online questioning of 438 members of an online access panel. Results Both presentation features and consumer characteristics (age and education) significantly affected consumers’ responses. Formats using combinations of bar charts and stars, three stars, an alphabetical ordering of providers and no inclusion of a global rating supported consumers. The effects of the presentation features differed across the outcome variables. Conclusions Comparative information on the quality of home care is complex for consumers. Although our findings derive from an experimental situation, they provide several suggestions for optimizing the information on the Internet. More research is needed to further unravel the effects of presentation formats on consumer decision making in health care
Consumer behaviour · Health care · The Internet · World Wide Web · Computer Science · Medicine · Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare · Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare · Primary Care and Health Outcomes · Psychology · Social Psychology
Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics
Testing the effects on information use by older versus younger women of modality and narration style in a hospital report card
The Net Promoter Score – an asset to patient experience surveys
Why patients may not exercise their choice when referred for hospital care. An exploratory study based on interviews with patients
The Adaptive Decision Maker
The Public Release of Performance Data
Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care
Numeracy Skill And The Communication, Comprehension, And Use Of Risk-Benefit Information
Quality of care from the patients' perspective
Development of an information source for patients and the public about general practice services
Connections Between Quality Measurement and Improvement
How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making
Effects of Information Presentation Format on Consumer Information Acquisition Strategies
Information-Presentation Format and Learning Goals as Determinants of Consumers' Memory Retrieval and Choice Processes
Another Look at the Impact of Information Presentation Format
| Unique citing works | 4 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,33 |
| Citation span | 2014 - 2022 (9) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 4 |