ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2025
Evaluating and Comparing the Content Coverage of Quality Measure Sets from Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQuality of care can be measured in several dimensions: different clinical disciplines, structures/processes/outcomes of care (SPO), and also different domains of quality (effectiveness, safety, care coordination, patient-centeredness, efficiency, timeliness, and community/population health). To our knowledge, no previous study has compared different sets of performance measures in terms of how well they cover these different aspects of quality.
objectiveCompare the content coverage of major quality measure sets from Israel, the US, and the UK.
designReview and categorization of performance measure sets, with disagreements between reviewers resolved through consensus. MAIN MEASURES: We selected three sets of quality measures: HEDIS, the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (USA), QOF, the Quality and Outcomes Framework (UK), and QICH, Quality Indicators for Community Healthcare (Israel). All measures were classified along three dimensions-clinical specialty, SPO, and seven domains of healthcare quality. We then compared the distribution of measures in each of the three sets, using Fischer's exact tests and post hoc tests of pairwise differences. KEY
resultsIn the medical specialty domain, all three countries focused primarily on family medicine/primary care. All three measure sets focused heavily on process measures, though to different extents, and all emphasized effectiveness of care, community/population health, and communication and care coordination over other domains of quality.
conclusionsThe measure sets we examined, which overwhelmingly measure processes of care, should be encouraged to add structure and outcomes measures. All three measure sets under-emphasize certain aspects of quality such as timeliness, care coordination, efficiency, and patient-centeredness. Finally, and most importantly, all three measure sets focused overwhelmingly on measuring the activities of family physicians; attention should be given to building measures that will examine the activities of other clinicians.
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.