» Articles » PMID: 27995317

No Common Understanding of Profession Terms Utilized in Health Services Research : An Add-on Qualitative Study in the Context of the QUALICOPC Project in Austria

Overview
Publisher Springer
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2016 Dec 21
PMID 27995317
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Health services research, especially in primary care, is challenging because the systems differ widely between countries. This study aimed to explore the different understanding of the terminology used, particularly, regarding the professions nursing and medical secretaries.

Methods: The study was an add-on study to the Quality and Costs in Primary Care (QUALICOPC) project in Austria and designed as qualitative research. The qualitative phase was conducted by using semi-structured telephone interviews with general practitioners (GP). and17 GPs participated in the study.

Results: No uniform meaning of the terms commonly utilized for the abovementioned health professions could be found among Austrian GPs. For example, under the profession term practice assistants, nurses as well as literal medical secretaries with and without special education and related work competencies and responsibilities were subsumed.

Conclusions: Our study results show that no uniform meaning of the terms commonly utilized for above described health profession could be found even within one country by GPs. These findings are highly relevant, especially, when trying to compare results with similar data from other countries or negotiating about workforce issues. Our findings implicate several action points for health services research and health policy. We propose the development of a harmonized terminology in Europe for the health profession based on standards of undergraduate and postgraduate education, competencies and continuous education commitments. This would not only benefit comparative health system research but also patient safety across Europe.

Citing Articles

Association between physical activity and the utilization of general practitioners in different age groups.

Dorner T, Wilfinger J, Hoffman K, Lackinger C Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2019; 131(11-12):278-287.

PMID: 31076889 PMC: 6570780. DOI: 10.1007/s00508-019-1503-8.

References
1.
De Maeseneer J, De Sutter A . Why research in family medicine? A superfluous question. Ann Fam Med. 2005; 2 Suppl 2:S17-22. PMC: 1466767. DOI: 10.1370/afm.148. View

2.
Macinko J, Starfield B, Shi L . The contribution of primary care systems to health outcomes within Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, 1970-1998. Health Serv Res. 2003; 38(3):831-65. PMC: 1360919. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.00149. View

3.
Groenewegen P . Analyzing European health systems: Europe as a research laboratory. Eur J Public Health. 2013; 23(2):185-6. DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckt032. View

4.
Fowler Jr F . How unclear terms affect survey data. Public Opin Q. 1993; 56(2):218-31. DOI: 10.1086/269312. View

5.
Kringos D, Boerma W, Zee J, Groenewegen P . Europe's strong primary care systems are linked to better population health but also to higher health spending. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013; 32(4):686-94. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1242. View