Trial reportJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2014
Experimental studies to improve the reliability and validity of regulatory judgments on health care in the Netherlands: a randomized controlled trial and before and after case study.
Trial report in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mediators of change in healthcare organisations subject to external assessment: a systematic review with narrative synthesis.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Are inspectors' assessments reliable? Ratings of NHS acute hospital trust services in England.Journal of health services research & policy · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND
objectivesWe examined the effect of two interventions on both the reliability and validity of regulatory judgments: adjusting the regulatory instrument and attending a consensus meeting.
methodWe adjusted the regulatory instrument. With a randomized controlled trial (RCT) we examined the effect of the adjustments we made to the instrument. In the consensus meeting inspectors discussed cases and had to reach consensus about the order of the cases. We used a before and after case study to assess the effect of the consensus meeting. We compared the judgments assigned in the RCT with the unadjusted instrument with the judgments assigned with the unadjusted instrument after the consensus meeting. Moreover we explored the effect of increasing the number of inspectors per regulatory visit based on the estimates of the two interventions.
resultsThe consensus meeting improved the agreement between inspectors; the variance between inspectors was smallest (0.03) and the reliability coefficient was highest (0.59). Validity is assessed by examining the relation between the assigned judgments and the corporate standard and expressed by a correlation coefficient. This coefficient was highest after the consensus meeting (0.48). Adjustment of the instrument did not increase reliability and validity coefficients.
conclusionsParticipating in a consensus meeting improved reliability and validity. Increasing the number of inspectors resulted in both higher reliability and validity values. Organizing consensus meetings and increasing the number of inspectors per regulatory visit seem to be valuable interventions for improving regulatory judgments.
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.