Author
Listed:
- Susan Chimonas
(Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA)
- Elizabeth Fortier
(Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA)
- Diane G. Li
(Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA)
- Allison Lipitz-Snyderman
(Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA)
Abstract
Objective. Public reporting on the quality of provider care has the potential to empower patients to make evidence-based decisions. Yet patients seldom consult resources such as provider report cards in part because they perceive the information as irrelevant. To inform more effective public reporting, we investigated patients’ information priorities when selecting a hospital for cancer treatment. We hypothesized that patients would be most interested in data on clinical outcomes. Methods. An experienced moderator led a series of focus groups using a semistructured discussion guide. Separate sessions were held with patients aged 18 to 54 years and those older than 54 years in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Phoenix, Arizona; and Indianapolis, Indiana, in 2017. All 38 participants had received treatment for cancer within the past 2 years and had a choice of hospitals. Results. In selecting hospitals for cancer treatment, many participants reported that they considered factors such as reputation, quality of the facilities, and experiences of other patients. For most, however, decisions were guided by trusted advisors, with the majority agreeing that a physician’s opinion would sway them to disregard objective data about hospital quality. Nonetheless, nearly all expressed interest in having comparative data. Participants varied in selecting from a hypothetical list, “the top 3 things you would want to know when choosing a hospital for cancer care.†The most commonly preferred items were overall care quality, timeliness, and patient satisfaction. Contrary to our hypothesis, many preferred to avoid viewing comparative clinical outcomes, particularly survival. Conclusions. Patients’ information preferences are diverse. Fear or other emotional responses might deter patients from viewing outcomes data such as survival. Additional research should explore optimal ways to help patients incorporate comparative data on the components of quality they value into decision making.
Suggested Citation
Susan Chimonas & Elizabeth Fortier & Diane G. Li & Allison Lipitz-Snyderman, 2019.
"Facts and Fears in Public Reporting: Patients’ Information Needs and Priorities When Selecting a Hospital for Cancer Care,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(6), pages 632-641, August.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:6:p:632-641
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19855050
Download full text from publisher
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:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:6:p:632-641. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.