Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35993182›Full record

ReviewEpidemiology and psychiatric sciences2022

Magnitude of terminological bias in international health services research: a disambiguation analysis in mental health.

M R Gutierrez-Colosia, P Hinck, J Simon, A Konnopka, C Fischer, S Mayer, V Brodszky, L Hakkart-van Roijen, S Evers, A Park and 5 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Unit Costs in Health Economic Evaluations: Quo Vadis, Austria?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  16. In Search for Comparability: The PECUNIA Reference Unit Costs for Health and Social Care Services in Europe.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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

15 authors.

M R Gutierrez-ColosiaDepartment of Psychology, Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Seville, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2631-0205
P HinckDepartment of Health Economics and Health Services Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
J SimonDepartment of Health Economics, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
A KonnopkaDepartment of Health Economics and Health Services Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
C FischerDepartment of Health Economics, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
S MayerDepartment of Health Economics, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
V BrodszkyDepartment of Health Economics, Corvinus University of Budapest, Budapest, Hungary.
L Hakkart-van RoijenErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
S EversDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences (FHML), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
A ParkDepartment of Health Policy, Care Policy and Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
H H KönigDepartment of Health Economics and Health Services Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
W HollingworthHealth Economics Bristol, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
J A Salinas-PerezDepartment of Quantitative Methods, Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Sevilla, Spain.
PECUNIA Group
L Salvador-CarullaFaculty of Health, Health Research Institute, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsHealth services research (HSR) is affected by a widespread problem related to service terminology including non-commensurability (using different units of analysis for comparisons) and terminological unclarity due to ambiguity and vagueness of terms. The aim of this study was to identify the magnitude of the terminological bias in health and social services research and health economics by applying an international classification system.

methodsThis study, that was part of the PECUNIA project, followed an ontoterminology approach (disambiguation of technical and scientific terms using a taxonomy and a glossary of terms). A listing of 56 types of health and social services relevant for mental health was compiled from a systematic review of the literature and feedback provided by 29 experts in six European countries. The disambiguation of terms was performed using an ontology-based classification of services (Description and Evaluation of Services and DirectoriEs - DESDE), and its glossary of terms. The analysis focused on the commensurability and the clarity of definitions according to the reference classification system. Interrater reliability was analysed using

resultsThe disambiguation revealed that only 13 terms (23%) of the 56 services selected were accurate. Six terms (11%) were confusing as they did not correspond to services as defined in the reference classification system (non-commensurability bias), 27 (48%) did not include a clear definition of the target population for which the service was intended, and the definition of types of services was unclear in 59% of the terms: 15 were ambiguous and 11 vague. The

conclusionsService terminology is a source of systematic bias in health service research, and certainly in mental healthcare. The magnitude of the problem is substantial. This finding has major implications for the international comparability of resource use in health economics, quality and equality research. The approach presented in this paper contributes to minimise differentiation between services by taking into account key features such as target population, care setting, main activities and type and number of professionals among others. This approach also contributes to support financial incentives for effective health promotion and disease prevention. A detailed analysis of services in terms of cost measurement for economic evaluations reveals the necessity and usefulness of defining services using a coding system and taxonomical criteria rather than by 'text-based descriptions'.

Indexed as

Health Services ResearchMental HealthBiasHealth Services Needs and DemandHumansReproducibility of ResultsDisambiguationmental health servicesPECUNIAterminology

Identifiers

PMID35993182
PMCPMC9428902

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.