Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22071813›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2011

Public release of performance data in changing the behaviour of healthcare consumers, professionals or organisations.

Nicole A B M Ketelaar, Marjan J Faber, Signe Flottorp, Liv Helen Rygh, Katherine H O Deane, Martin P Eccles

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02831439 (A Statewide Intervention to Reduce Use of Unproven or Ineffective Breast Cancer Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 66 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02831439 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2014, after this paper: background citation

A Statewide Intervention to Reduce Use of Unproven or Ineffective Breast Cancer Care

TypeinterventionalSponsorMedical College of WisconsinRan2014 to 2019Enrolled400,415ConditionsBreast CancerArmsBasic public reporting, Enhanced intervention, Control group - observational
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

66 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. [The validity of routine data on quality assurance: A qualitative systematic review].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2016
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Assessment of Patient Matters in Healthcare Facilities.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. How do consumers respond when presented with novel doctor performance information? A multivariate regression analysis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Nicole A B M KetelaarScientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare), Radboud University NijmegenMedical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands. n.ketelaar@iq.umcn.nl.
Marjan J Faber
Signe Flottorp
Liv Helen Rygh
Katherine H O Deane
Martin P Eccles

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is becoming increasingly common to release information about the performance of hospitals, health professionals or providers, and healthcare organisations into the public domain. However, we do not know how this information is used and to what extent such reporting leads to quality improvement by changing the behaviour of healthcare consumers, providers and purchasers, or to what extent the performance of professionals and providers can be affected.

objectivesTo determine the effectiveness of the public release of performance data in changing the behaviour of healthcare consumers, professionals and organisations. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Trials Register, MEDLINE Ovid (from 1966), EMBASE Ovid (from 1979), CINAHL, PsycINFO Ovid (from 1806) and DARE up to 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised or quasi-randomised trials, interrupted time series and controlled before-after studies of the effects of publicly releasing data regarding any aspect of the performance of healthcare organisations or individuals. The papers had to report at least one main outcome related to selecting or changing care. Other outcome measures were awareness, attitude, views and knowledge of performance data and costs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies for eligibility and extracted data. For each study, we extracted data about the target groups (healthcare consumers, healthcare providers and healthcare purchasers), performance data, main outcomes (choice of healthcare provider and improvement by means of changes in care) and other outcomes (awareness, attitude, views, knowledge of performance data and costs). MAIN

resultsWe included four studies containing more than 35,000 consumers, and 1560 hospitals. Three studies were conducted in the USA and examined consumer behaviour after the public release of performance data. Two studies found no effect of Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems information on health plan choice in a Medicaid population. One interrupted time series study found a small positive effect of the publishing of data on patient volumes for coronary bypass surgery and low-complication outliers for lumbar discectomy, but these effects did not persist longer than two months after each public release. No effects on patient volumes for acute myocardial infarction were found.One cluster-randomised controlled trial, conducted in Canada, studied improvement changes in care after the public release of performance data for patients with acute myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure. No effects for the composite process-of-care indicators for either condition were found, but there were some improvements in the individual process-of-care indicators. There was an effect on the mortality rates for acute myocardial infarction. More quality improvement activities were initiated in response to the publicly-released report cards. No secondary outcomes were reported. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe small body of evidence available provides no consistent evidence that the public release of performance data changes consumer behaviour or improves care. Evidence that the public release of performance data may have an impact on the behaviour of healthcare professionals or organisations is lacking.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationQuality ImprovementCanadaConsumer Health InformationEvaluation Studies as TopicHealth Maintenance OrganizationsHospitalsHumansMedicaidOrganizational InnovationQuality Assurance, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of ResultsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID22071813
PMCPMC4204393

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.