Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30188566›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2018

Impact of public release of performance data on the behaviour of healthcare consumers and providers.

David Metcalfe, Arturo J Rios Diaz, Olubode A Olufajo, M Sofia Massa, Nicole Abm Ketelaar, Signe A Flottorp, Daniel C Perry

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
12.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Assessment of Patient Matters in Healthcare Facilities.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Developing the Quality in Nutrition Care Model for Dietitians (QUINCE-MOD) in primary care: A mixed-method survey of healthcare consumers and professionals.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. [Effects of statutory quality assurance in acute inpatient care].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2022
    Review
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

David MetcalfeNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headley Way, Oxford, UK, OX3 9DU.
Arturo J Rios Diaz
Olubode A Olufajo
M Sofia Massa
Nicole Abm Ketelaar
Signe A Flottorp
Daniel C Perry
University of Oxford · GBHoward University · USJohn Radcliffe Hospital · GBSaxion University of Applied Sciences · NLThomas Jefferson University Hospital · USUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

Department of Health CS-2014-14-012
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is becoming increasingly common to publish information about the quality and performance of healthcare organisations and individual professionals. However, we do not know how this information is used, or the extent to which such reporting leads to quality improvement by changing the behaviour of healthcare consumers, providers, and purchasers.

objectivesTo estimate the effects of public release of performance data, from any source, on changing the healthcare utilisation behaviour of healthcare consumers, providers (professionals and organisations), and purchasers of care. In addition, we sought to estimate the effects on healthcare provider performance, patient outcomes, and staff morale. SEARCH

methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers on 26 June 2017. We checked reference lists of all included studies to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised or non-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 professionals. Each study had to report at least one main outcome related to selecting or changing care. 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, knowledge of performance data, and costs). Given the substantial degree of clinical and methodological heterogeneity between the studies, we presented the findings for each policy in a structured format, but did not undertake a meta-analysis. MAIN

resultsWe included 12 studies that analysed data from more than 7570 providers (e.g. professionals and organisations), and a further 3,333,386 clinical encounters (e.g. patient referrals, prescriptions). We included four cluster-randomised trials, one cluster-non-randomised trial, six interrupted time series studies, and one controlled before-after study. Eight studies were undertaken in the USA, and one each in Canada, Korea, China, and The Netherlands. Four studies examined the effect of public release of performance data on consumer healthcare choices, and four on improving quality.There was low-certainty evidence that public release of performance data may make little or no difference to long-term healthcare utilisation by healthcare consumers (3 studies; 18,294 insurance plan beneficiaries), or providers (4 studies; 3,000,000 births, and 67 healthcare providers), or to provider performance (1 study; 82 providers). However, there was also low-certainty evidence to suggest that public release of performance data may slightly improve some patient outcomes (5 studies, 315,092 hospitalisations, and 7502 providers). There was low-certainty evidence from a single study to suggest that public release of performance data may have differential effects on disadvantaged populations. There was no evidence about effects on healthcare utilisation decisions by purchasers, or adverse effects. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe existing evidence base is inadequate to directly inform policy and practice. Further studies should consider whether public release of performance data can improve patient outcomes, as well as healthcare processes.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationQuality ImprovementCanadaClinical Decision-MakingConsumer Health InformationEvaluation Studies as TopicHealth Maintenance OrganizationsHealth Services Needs and DemandHospitalsHumansMedicaidOrganizational InnovationQuality Assurance, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of ResultsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID30188566
PMCPMC6513271
OpenAlexW2889705748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.