ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Evaluation of a new design solution for the visualisation of a risk-adjusted hospital performance comparison: results of an end user-centred mixed methods study.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare stakeholders are increasingly seeking comparative provider performance data to enhance data-driven decision-making and quality improvement. Traditional visualisations, like caterpillar plots, are often difficult for end users to understand and interpret. This study aimed to (1) obtain general feedback from end users on a newly proposed design solution for visualising a risk-adjusted hospital comparison and to develop an understanding of the key criteria they rely on in the evaluation process; (2) test the hypothesis that end users will better understand key messages and rate perceived usability higher with the new design solution than with a caterpillar plot.
methodsAn end user-centred mixed methods study, involving end users of risk-adjusted hospital comparisons across all levels of the Swiss healthcare system, was conducted to evaluate the new design solution. In the qualitative phase, 14 end users from health authorities, insurers, hospital associations, and hospitals were surveyed in 10 semi-structured individual and group interviews, which were analysed using thematic analysis. In the quantitative phase, a non-clinical randomised controlled online trial (A/B testing) was conducted. In total, 200 of the targeted end users, comprising cantonal quality managers, hospital directors, and those responsible for quality and/or the 'National Prevalence Measurement' in hospitals, completed the questionnaire. The data were analysed using comparative descriptive and bivariate statistics.
resultsThematic analysis revealed three key criteria that end users relied on when evaluating a risk-adjusted hospital comparison: (1) 'clarity by design', highlighting strategies for effectively conveying key messages of hospital comparisons; (2) 'usability by design', focusing on end user-centred functionalities and presentation elements; (3) 'suitability for quality development', addressing the conditions for creating a trustworthy and useful comparison to drive quality improvement. Quantitative analysis confirmed the hypothesis that end users understand key messages better and perceived usability is higher with the new design than with the caterpillar plot.
conclusionsThe new design solution improves hospital comparison outputs for end users by combining clear displays with additional interactive features. The identified criteria underlying the evaluation should inform further design projects and research dealing with the visualisation of hospital comparisons. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.