ArticleHealth services research2021
Differences in trends of perceived inpatient care quality based on regional socioeconomic level in the United States and Taiwan.
Article in Health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Online Patient Reviews for Continuous Quality Improvement: Topic Modeling of Hospital Service Quality in Taiwan and the United States.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- National Patient Satisfaction Survey as a Predictor for Quality of Care and Quality Improvement - Experience and Practice.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- Differences in trends of perceived inpatient care quality based on regional socioeconomic level in the United States and Taiwan.Health services research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo examine perceived inpatient care quality according to regional socioeconomic status (SES), measured by regional household income, across the United States and Taiwan. DATA SOURCES: Patient Experience in Hospital Care (PEHC) survey 2018-2019 data from National Taiwan University; US Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) 2018-2019 data from CMS.gov; and household income and facility data from publicly accessible databases. STUDY
designThis retrospective study used multivariate logistic regression to estimate the effect of household income on the rate of positive inpatient experiences in Taiwan and the United States, adjusting for hospitals' teaching status and ownership, and physician density. DATA COLLECTION: Hospital administrators for HCAHPS and PEHC's research teams invited patients who received inpatient care during the data collection period in the United States and Taiwan, respectively. The analysis included 1024 facilities from nine US states and 350 facilities from twenty major cities/counties in Taiwan. PRINCIPAL
findingsPerceived inpatient care quality was higher in the United States than in Taiwan for the three experience measures. In Taiwan, hospitals with higher regional SES were less likely to receive a highly positive response for perceived respect, accommodation quality, and understanding upon discharge, with odds ratios (ORs) ranging from 0.83 to 0.88. In contrast, in the United States, higher regional SES was associated with a higher likelihood of a positive response for accommodation quality and understanding upon discharge (ORs = 2.51 and 1.48). Regional physician density and individual hospital characteristics show varying effects on perceived quality between Taiwan and the United States.
conclusionsHigher overall experience scores in the United States are consistent with higher spending on health care compared with Taiwan. Varying associations between regional SES and perceived inpatient care quality highlight how systemic and cultural differences between the two countries affect scoring patterns.
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.