ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2010
Can choice of the sample population affect perceived performance: implications for performance assessment.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- ANALYSES OF PREVENTIVE CARE MEASURES WITH INCOMPLETE HISTORICAL DATA IN ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS: AN EXAMPLE FROM COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING.The annals of applied statistics · 2020Article
- Inclusion of short-term care patients affects the perceived performance of specialists: a retrospective cohort study.BMC health services research · 2015Article
- When quality indicators undermine quality: bias in a quality indicator of follow-up for alcohol misuse.Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) · 2013Article
- Methodological challenges of measuring primary care delivery to pediatric medicaid beneficiaries who use community health centers.American journal of public health · 2013Article
- Effect of patient selection method on provider group performance estimates.Medical care · 2011Article
- The health disparities cancer collaborative: a case study of practice registry measurement in a quality improvement collaborative.Implementation science : IS · 2010Article
- Improving the performance of performance measurement.Journal of general internal medicine · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is accelerating interest in measuring and reporting the quality of care delivered by health care providers and organizations, but methods for defining the patient panels for which they are held accountable are not well defined.
objectivesTo examine the potential impact of using alternative algorithms to define accountable patient populations for performance assessment. RESEARCH
designWe used administrative data regarding Community Health Center (CHC) visits in simulations of performance assessment for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening.
participantsFifteen CHC sites in the northeastern US. MEASURES: We used three different algorithms to define patient populations eligible for measurement of cancer screening rates and simulated center-level performance rates based on these alternative population definitions.
resultsFocusing on breast cancer screening, the percentage of women aged 51-75 eligible for this measure across CHCs, if using the most stringent algorithm (requiring a visit in the assessment year plus at least one visit in the 2 years prior), ranged from 28% to 60%. Analogous ranges for cervical and colorectal cancer screening were 18-59% and 26-62%, respectively. Simulated performance data from the centers demonstrate that variations in eligible patient populations across health centers could lead to the appearance of large differences in health center performance or differences in expected rankings of CHCs when no such differences exist. For instance, when holding performance among similar populations constant, but varying the proportion of populations seen across different health centers, simulated health center adherence to screening guidelines varied by over 15% even though actual adherence for similar populations did not differ.
conclusionsQuality measurement systems, such as those being used in pay-for-performance and public reporting programs, must consider the definitions used to identify sample populations and how such populations might differ across providers, clinical practice groups, and provider systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.