ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2015
The use of publicly available quality information when choosing a hospital or health-care provider: the role of the GP.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanisms and impact of public reporting on physicians and hospitals' performance: A systematic review (2000-2020).PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- The effect of public reporting of acute myocardial infarction on the choice of hospital.PloS one · 2025Article
- The elicitation of patient and physician preferences for calculating consumer-based composite measures on hospital report cards: results of two discrete choice experiments.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024Article
- Perspective of potential patients on the hospital volume-outcome relationship and the minimum volume threshold for total knee arthroplasty: a qualitative focus group and interview study.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- National Evaluation of Patient Preferences in Selecting Hospitals and Health Care Providers.Medical care · 2020Article
- Article
- The use of public performance reporting by general practitioners: a study of perceptions and referral behaviours.BMC family practice · 2018Article
- Comparative performance information plays no role in the referral behaviour of GPs.BMC family practice · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients barely use publicly available quality information for making a decision concerning secondary health care, but instead rely on information coming from their general practitioner (GP). An intermediate role of GPs has been suggested concerning the use of publicly available quality information. The aim of the study is to quantify and explore GPs' use of publicly available quality information when referring patients or suggesting secondary health-care provider to them.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, an invitation to an electronic questionnaire was sent to 858 GPs in the south of the Netherlands. GPs were asked about their use of and perception towards publicly available quality information through closed-ended and open-ended questions. Differences among subgroups were tested for significance using Pearson's chi-square tests.
resultsThe majority of respondents (89.5%) never or rarely use publicly available quality information. They perceive them as invalid and unreliable. Distance to the hospital, prior experiences and personal contacts with specialists guide them when advising and referring. Almost 90% of respondents never or rarely suggest quality information as support for decision making to their patients. No significant differences between subgroups were observed.
conclusionThis study is among the firsts exploring and quantifying GPs' use of publicly available quality information. The results suggest that publicly available quality information appears in its current format and application not useful for GPs. GPs have to be aware of their influential role in patients' decision making and possibly have to take more responsibility in guiding them through the jungle of quality information.
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.