IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/1978685464-470_5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A method for selecting criteria to evaluate medical care

Author

Listed:
  • Wagner, E.H.
  • Williams, C.A.
  • Greenberg, R.
  • Kleinbaum, D.
  • Wolf, S.
  • Ibrahim, M.A.

Abstract

This study tests a questionnaire method for eliciting process criteria for medical care appraisal. The questionnaire was sent to national samples of family physicians, pediatricians, and pediatricians specializing in infectious diseases asking their opinions about various clinical actions in 125 clinical situations concerning respiratory infection in infants. Five hundred twenty-four (54 per cent) physicians returned completed questionnaires. Questionnaire responses favored the performance of a majority of actions and opposed very few. Opinions concerning individual actions, particularly diagnostic tests and treatments, varied widely depending upon the clinical situation presented. A second questionnaire sent one year later indicated that the opinions expressed in the first questionnaire remained stable over time, especially if the initial opinion favored performance of the action. Comparison of the questionnaire responses and medical records of a group of practitioners demonstrated that only 55 per cent of actions favored in a practitioner's questionnaire appeared in his records. Although the questionnaire method appears to be a feasible, specific, and reliable means of identifying clinical opinion, there remains considerable discordance between opinion as expressed in the questionnaire and recorded clinical practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Wagner, E.H. & Williams, C.A. & Greenberg, R. & Kleinbaum, D. & Wolf, S. & Ibrahim, M.A., 1978. "A method for selecting criteria to evaluate medical care," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 68(5), pages 464-470.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1978:68:5:464-470_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1978:68:5:464-470_5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.