본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기
22대 대한민국 국회 국회정보길라잡이 국회의원검색
회원가입 로그인
HOME

정보검색

소장정보 검색

국회도서관 홈으로 정보검색 소장정보 검색

결과 내 검색

동의어 포함

고급검색

인명/단체명

저자정보 상세정보
인명/단체명을 입력하세요.

키워드

  • 대표어

  • 외국어

-

목차보기

Title page 1

Contents 5

Disclaimers 2

Abstract 3

Acknowledgements 4

Contact 4

Executive summary 7

1. The patient voice in health policymaking 9

1.1. International data collections provide standardised and harmonised data, allowing cross-country comparison and learning 9

2. Comparing methodologies of five international surveys 11

2.1. While all surveys share the overarching goal of improving health systems, each focusses on distinct dimensions for assessment 11

2.2. Differences in purpose and scope lead to distinct approaches in survey design and implementation 13

2.3. Variations in sample size and response rates mirror survey purpose and design 16

2.4. While all surveys include patient-reported measures, the overlap in subdomains covered is minimal 17

2.4.1. PREMs 17

2.4.2. PROMs 17

2.4.3. Health and healthcare capabilities 18

2.4.4. Health behaviours 18

2.5. Only a few indicators are meaningfully comparable across all surveys 19

3. Results across selected comparable indicators 21

3.1. Self-rated general health 22

3.2. Experienced quality of care 24

3.3. Confidence to self-manage 26

3.4. Hospitalisation 28

4. Key lessons and recommendations 31

4.1. Choosing the right source of information for a given policy question 32

References 34

Annex A. Full list of comparable indicators in each survey per subdomain 37

Tables 6

Table 1. The intersection of country coverage in the last rounds of PaRIS, EHIS, the IHP survey, PVS and SHARE 13

Table 2. Comparing the scope of international health surveys 14

Table 3. Harmonisation of response categories for self-rated general health 22

Table 4. Harmonisation of response categories for experienced quality of care 24

Table 5. Harmonisation of response categories for confidence to self-manage 27

Table 6. Harmonisation of response categories for hospitalisation 28

Figures 6

Figure 1. Taking the PaRIS subdomains as the reference, each survey demonstrated a distinct focus, with no single survey fully aligned... 17

Figure 2. When compared at the indicator level, no single survey produces a complete balanced suite of comparable indicators with PaRIS 20

Figure 3. Self-rated general health varies on average 6.2 p.p. across surveys 23

Figure 4. Experienced quality of care 26

Figure 5. More respondents in PVS reported feeling responsible to manage compared to the number of PaRIS respondents having... 27

Figure 6. In general, PaRIS respondents reported higher hospitalisation in the last 12 months compared to other surveys, the gap... 29

Boxes 12

Box 1. Key features of the surveys 12

Box 2. Assessing the comparability of surveys and questionnaire items 18

Box 3. Comparing a selected set of indicators through further harmonisation, standardisation and weighting 21

Annex Tables 6

Table A A.1. Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) 37

Table A A.2. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) 37

Table A A.3. Health capabilities 38

Table A A.4. Access 38

Table A A.5. Other healthcare use 38

Table A A.6. Health behaviours 38

추천서가 (다양한 추천 자료를 만나보세요)

권호기사보기

권호기사 목록 테이블로 기사명, 저자명, 페이지, 원문, 기사목차 순으로 되어있습니다.
기사명 저자명 페이지 원문 기사목차

권호

기사명 원문보기 기사목차
닫기