Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32744413›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2020

Priority measures for publicly reporting primary care performance: Results of public engagement through deliberative dialogues in 3 Canadian provinces.

Morgan Slater, Julia Abelson, Sabrina T Wong, Julia M Langton, Fred Burge, William Hogg, Matthew Hogel, Ruth Martin-Misener, Sharon Johnston

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Priority measures for publicly reporting primary care performance: Results of public engagement through deliberative dialogues in 3 Canadian provinces.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

Morgan SlaterDepartment of Family Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3967-2501
Julia AbelsonDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2907-2783
Sabrina T WongCentre for Health Services and Policy Research, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Julia M LangtonCentre for Health Services and Policy Research, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Fred BurgeDepartment of Family Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
William HoggDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Matthew HogelCT Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, ÉlisabethBruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Ruth Martin-MisenerSchool of Nursing, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Sharon JohnstonDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8382-0378

Funding

CIHR TTF‐128265
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWhile public reporting of hospital-based performance measurement is commonplace, it has lagged in the primary care sector, especially in Canada. Despite the increasing recognition of patients as active partners in the health-care system, little is known about what information about primary care performance is relevant to the Canadian public. We explored patient perspectives and priorities for the public reporting of primary care performance measures.

methodsWe conducted six deliberative dialogue sessions across three Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Ontario, Nova Scotia). Participants were asked to rank and discuss the importance of collecting and reporting on specific dimensions and indicators of primary care performance. We conducted a thematic analysis of the data.

resultsFifty-six patients participated in the dialogue sessions. Measures of access to primary care providers, communication with providers and continuity of information across all providers involved in a patient's care were identified as the highest priority indicators of primary care performance from a patient perspective. Several common measures of quality of care, such as rates of cancer screening, were viewed as too patient dependent to be used to evaluate the health system or primary care provider's performance.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that public reporting aimed at patient audiences should focus on a nuanced measure of access, incorporation of context reported alongside measurement that is for public audiences, clear reporting on provider communication and a measure of information continuity. Participants highlighted the importance the public places on their providers staying up to date with advances in care.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CarePrimary Health CareBritish ColumbiaHumansNova ScotiaOntariopatient-oriented researchperformance measurementperformance reportingprimary carepublic engagement

Identifiers

PMID32744413
PMCPMC7696126

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.