IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v42y1996i5p643-649.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quality of care: A comparison of preferences between medical specialists and patients with chronic diseases

Author

Listed:
  • van der Waal, Marieke A. E.
  • Casparie, Anton F.
  • Lako, Christiaan J.

Abstract

In this study, we have looked for differences between medical specialists and patients with chronic diseases (COPD, rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes mellitus) in preferences of aspects of care in relation to the quality of care. Firstly, to enumerate relevant aspects for chronic diseases, open interviews and a concept mapping were conducted among patients with a chronic disease, and medical specialists treating them. Here, the respondents have been asked to evaluate statements in relation to the quality of care. Secondly, a final questionnaire, including statements on nine relevant aspects of care, was presented to patients and medical specialists. The response rate among patients was 96% (N = 260) and among medical specialists 67% (N = 340). Both study populations ranked 'effectiveness of care' the highest. However, the difference in opinion between the two populations was significant, mainly due to the patient's giving a higher ranking to 'continuity of care' and a lower ranking to 'efficiency'. Significant differences were also found between the three patient groups on the aspects 'knowledge' and 'waiting time for treatment'. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis ranked 'knowledge' higher and 'waiting time for treatment' lower than did the other two patient groups. A lower level of education, having state-regulated health insurance and being older were associated with a higher preference for 'continuity'. Between the three groups of the medical specialists, no significant differences were found regarding to the profession, age and sex. In conclusion: the patients and medical specialists researched did not show wide differences of opinion on preferences of care in relation to quality. The only exception to this concerned 'continuity of care' which was ranked higher by patients.

Suggested Citation

  • van der Waal, Marieke A. E. & Casparie, Anton F. & Lako, Christiaan J., 1996. "Quality of care: A comparison of preferences between medical specialists and patients with chronic diseases," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 643-649, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:42:y:1996:i:5:p:643-649
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(95)00200-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rosas, Scott R. & Ridings, John W., 2017. "The use of concept mapping in measurement development and evaluation: Application and future directions," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 265-276.
    2. Lill-Brith Arx & Trine Kjær, 2014. "The Patient Perspective of Diabetes Care: A Systematic Review of Stated Preference Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(3), pages 283-300, September.
    3. Shiell, Alan, 1997. "Health outcomes are about choices and values: an economic perspective on the health outcomes movement," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 5-15, January.

    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:eee:socmed:v:42:y:1996:i:5:p:643-649. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.