The Effect of Public Reporting Presentation on Patients' Decision Making: An Experimental Survey in Yunan Province, China

Overview

Journal Medicine (Baltimore)

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2017 Jun 15

PMID 28614266

Citations 1

Authors

Chenxi Liu

Yuqing Tang

Dan Wang

Xinping Zhang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Public reporting of comparative performance information (PRCPI) influence patients' decision making and optimal presentation of PRCPI is urgently required for successful patients' engagement and quality improvement. This study was to explore the presentation of PRCPI impacting on consumers' decision making.This research applied a controlled design, with participants allocated randomly to 6 groups, and a total of 515 participants were recruited in Yunnan province. Five aspects of PRCPI presentations were evaluated, including display (star rating vs numeric information), and whether information was simplified, interpreted, overload, or ranked. Participants were stimulated to identify the best or worst physicians with a hypothetical scenario. Main outcome measures were correct choices rate of best/worst physicians, indicating participants fully understood and correctly used PRCPI. χ test and logistic regression were applied to assess the effect between different presentations on consumers' decision making.The correct choices rate is only 48.93%. Compared with star rating, numerical information helped participants differentiate low-performance physicians (OR = 2.573, P = .029), including low-performance physicians in antibiotics (OR = 2.974, P = .031) and low-performance physicians in injections (OR = 2.369, P = .035). Disordered information impeded participants to fully understand and correctly use PRCPI (OR = 0.519, P = .041). The effect was mainly reflected on participants differentiating low-performance physicians (OR = 0.491, P = .039) and low-performance physicians in injections (OR = 0.440, P = .016). Other aspects of PRCPI showed nonsignificant impacts on consumers' decision making.Presentation, including information display and ranking, can influence patients' correct usage of PRCPI and the effect was mainly observed when the patients were identifying poorly performing physicians. The present study demonstrated that numerical and ranked PRCPI, combined with sufficient patient education, could be most effective to facilitate patient use.

Citing Articles

Identifying key influences on antibiotic use in China: a systematic scoping review and narrative synthesis.

Coope C, Schneider A, Zhang T, Kadetz P, Feng R, Lambert H BMJ Open. 2022; 12(3):e056348.

PMID: 35338063 PMC: 8961142. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056348.

References

Hibbard J, Slovic P, Peters E, Finucane M . Strategies for reporting health plan performance information to consumers: evidence from controlled studies. Health Serv Res. 2002; 37(2):291-313. PMC: 1430368. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.024. View

Greene J, Peters E . Medicaid consumers and informed decisionmaking. Health Care Financ Rev. 2009; 30(3):25-40. PMC: 4195072. View

Hibbard J, Stockard J, Tusler M . Does publicizing hospital performance stimulate quality improvement efforts?. Health Aff (Millwood). 2003; 22(2):84-94. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.22.2.84. View

Barnes A, Hanoch Y, Wood S, Liu P, Rice T . One fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish: effects of price frames, brand names, and choice set size on Medicare Part D insurance plan decisions. Med Care Res Rev. 2012; 69(4):460-73. DOI: 10.1177/1077558711435365. View

Smerecnik C, Mesters I, Kessels L, Ruiter R, De Vries N, de Vries H . Understanding the positive effects of graphical risk information on comprehension: measuring attention directed to written, tabular, and graphical risk information. Risk Anal. 2010; 30(9):1387-98. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01435.x. View

Laing R . Rational drug use: an unsolved problem. Trop Doct. 1990; 20(3):101-3. DOI: 10.1177/004947559002000303. View

Babio N, Vicent P, Lopez L, Benito A, Basulto J, Salas-Salvado J . Adolescents' ability to select healthy food using two different front-of-pack food labels: a cross-over study. Public Health Nutr. 2013; 17(6):1403-9. PMC: 10282295. DOI: 10.1017/S1368980013001274. View

Uhrig J, Harris-Kojetin L, Bann C, Kuo T . Do content and format affect older consumers' use of comparative information in a Medicare health plan choice? Results from a controlled experiment. Med Care Res Rev. 2006; 63(6):701-18. DOI: 10.1177/1077558706293636. View

Marshall M, Shekelle P, Davies H, Smith P . Public reporting on quality in the United States and the United Kingdom. Health Aff (Millwood). 2003; 22(3):134-48. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.22.3.134. View

10.

Werner R, Norton E, Konetzka R, Polsky D . Do consumers respond to publicly reported quality information? Evidence from nursing homes. J Health Econ. 2012; 31(1):50-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2012.01.001. View

11.

Gerteis M, Gerteis J, Newman D, Koepke C . Testing consumers' comprehension of quality measures using alternative reporting formats. Health Care Financ Rev. 2007; 28(3):31-45. PMC: 4194990. View

12.

Schneider E, Epstein A . Use of public performance reports: a survey of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. JAMA. 1998; 279(20):1638-42. DOI: 10.1001/jama.279.20.1638. View

13.

Ketelaar N, Faber M, Flottorp S, Rygh L, Deane K, Eccles M . Public release of performance data in changing the behaviour of healthcare consumers, professionals or organisations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; (11):CD004538. PMC: 4204393. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004538.pub2. View

14.

Hu S, Chen W, Cheng X, Chen K, Zhou H, Wang L . Pharmaceutical cost-containment policy: experiences in Shanghai, China. Health Policy Plan. 2002; 16 Suppl 2:4-9. DOI: 10.1093/heapol/16.suppl_2.4. View

15.

Schauffler H, Mordavsky J . Consumer reports in health care: do they make a difference?. Annu Rev Public Health. 2001; 22:69-89. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.22.1.69. View

16.

Kurtzman E, Greene J . Effective presentation of health care performance information for consumer decision making: A systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2015; 99(1):36-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.07.030. View

17.

Schlesinger M, Kanouse D, Martino S, Shaller D, Rybowski L . Complexity, public reporting, and choice of doctors: a look inside the blackest box of consumer behavior. Med Care Res Rev. 2013; 71(5 Suppl):38S-64S. PMC: 5444655. DOI: 10.1177/1077558713496321. View

18.

Hanoch Y, Rice T, Cummings J, Wood S . How much choice is too much? The case of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Health Serv Res. 2009; 44(4):1157-68. PMC: 2739022. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.00981.x. View

19.

Hanoch Y, Wood S, Barnes A, Liu P, Rice T . Choosing the right medicare prescription drug plan: the effect of age, strategy selection, and choice set size. Health Psychol. 2011; 30(6):719-27. PMC: 5595365. DOI: 10.1037/a0023951. View

20.

Berwick D, James B, Coye M . Connections between quality measurement and improvement. Med Care. 2003; 41(1 Suppl):I30-8. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200301001-00004. View