Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29606117›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

Inspectors' responses to adolescents' assessment of quality of care: a case study on involving adolescents in inspections.

Suzanne Rutz, Hester van de Bovenkamp, Simone Buitendijk, Paul Robben, Antoinette de Bont

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2018. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Involving Service Users in Care Regulation: A Scoping Review of Empirical Literature.International journal of health policy and management · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The patient died: What about involvement in the investigation process?International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Suzanne RutzErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. rutz@eshpm.eur.nl.
Hester van de BovenkampErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Simone BuitendijkImperial College London, London, UK.
Paul RobbenErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Antoinette de BontErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUsers of care services are increasingly participating in inspections of the quality of care. In practice, incorporating service users' views is difficult, as users may have other views on good care than inspectors and thus give information that does not fit the inspectors' assessment criteria. This study compared the views on good care of young care users (adolescents) and inspectors, seeking to understand what the differences and similarities mean to incorporating the users' views in inspections.

methodsWe conducted a single-case study combining document analysis with a meeting with inspectors. The selected case came from a Dutch inspectorate and involved a thematic inspection of care for children growing up poor.

resultsInspectors and adolescents agree on the importance of timely care, creating opportunities for personal development, and a respectful relationship. The views on quality of care differ with regard to sharing information, creating solutions, and the right moment to offer help. We identified three ways inspectors deal with the differences: 1) prioritize their own views, 2) pass the problem onto others to solve, and 3) separate the differing perspectives. With similar viewpoints, inspectors use the adolescents' views to support their assessments. When viewpoints conflict, information from adolescents does not affect the inspectors' judgments. Explanations are related to the vulnerability of the adolescents involved, the inspectorate's organizational rules and routines and the external regulatory context.

conclusionsService user involvement in inspections potentially impacts the quality of care. Yet, conflicts between the views of service users and inspectors are not easily overcome in the regulatory context.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdolescent Health ServicesChildChild Health ServicesDelivery of Health CareFemaleGovernment AgenciesHumansMalePovertyQuality of Health CareInspectoratesParticipationQuality of careRegulation

Identifiers

PMID29606117
PMCPMC5880074

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.