ArticleMedical care2020
National Evaluation of Patient Preferences in Selecting Hospitals and Health Care Providers.
Article in Medical care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patients prefer ChatGPT to institutional websites for questions on radiation-based imaging exams: international mixed-methods study.Radiology advances · 2026Article
- Gravity Modeling to Predict Patient Choice of Hospital for Pancreaticoduodenectomy.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Do patients scheduled for inguinal hernia repair express a preference for the repair technique? What questions do they frequently ask?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Observational
- Article
- Mental Health Treatment Needs and Preferences for People Living with Bipolar Disorder in Australia.Community mental health journal · 2025Article
- Are Aggregated Electronic Health Record Datasets Good for Research?Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Chemotherapy without Blood Products for Treatment of Acute Myelogenous Leukemia in an Anemic Jehovah's Witness Patient.The American journal of case reports · 2025Article
- Factors Influencing Patient Satisfaction with Healthcare Services in Poland.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Review
- Information usefulness of public disclosure in Taiwan: Does it vary across specific diseases/conditions and contexts?PloS one · 2025Article
- Clinical Outcomes, Costs, and Value of Surgery Among Older Patients with Colon Cancer at US News and World Report Ranked Versus Unranked Hospitals.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Exploratory analysis of factors influencing hospital preferences among the Lebanese population: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Patient regional index: a new way to rank clinical specialties based on outpatient clinics big data.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Regionalizing ovarian cancer cytoreduction to high-volume centers and the impact on patient travel in New York State.Gynecologic oncology · 2024Article
- Disparities in Healthcare-Seeking Behavior and Decision Preference Among Hispanics: A Comparative Study Across Races/Ethnicities, SES, and Provider Types.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Patterns of Care and Outcomes of Rectal Cancer Patients from the Iowa Cancer Registry: Role of Hospital Volume and Tumor Location.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023Article
- Factors Associated with the Patient/Client Use of Report Cards, Physician Rating Websites, Social Media, and Google for Hospital and Physician Selection: A Nationwide Survey.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The Majority of United States Citizens With Cancer do not Have Access to Carbon Ion Radiotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Objective Data Reveals Gender Preferences for Patients' Primary Care Physician.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
- Orthopaedic Practice Setting Opinions: Heat Maps for a Hot Topic.JB & JS open accessArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient utilization of public reporting has been suboptimal despite attempts to encourage use. Lack of utilization may be due to discordance between reported metrics and what patients want to know when making health care choices.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to identify measures of quality that individuals want to be presented in public reporting and explore factors associated with researching health care. RESEARCH
designPatient interviews and focus groups were conducted to develop a survey exploring the relative importance of various health care measures. SUBJECTS: Interviews and focus groups conducted at local outpatient clinics. A survey administered nationally on an anonymous digital platform. MEASURES: Likert scale responses were compared using tests of central tendency. Rank-order responses were compared using analysis of variance testing. Associations with binary outcomes were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.
resultsOverall, 4672 responses were received (42.0% response rate). Census balancing yielded 2004 surveys for analysis. Measures identified as most important were hospital reputation (considered important by 61.9%), physician experience (51.5%), and primary care recommendations (43.2%). Unimportant factors included guideline adherence (17.6%) and hospital academic affiliation (13.3%, P<0.001 for all compared with most important factors). Morbidity and mortality outcome measures were not among the most important factors. Patients were unlikely to rank outcome measures as the most important factors in choosing health care providers, irrespective of age, sex, educational status, or income.
conclusionsPatients valued hospital reputation, physician experience, and primary care recommendations while publicly reported metrics like patient outcomes were less important. Public quality reports contain information that patients perceive to be of relatively low value, which may contribute to low utilization.
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.