Measuring patient experiences in Europe: what can we learn from the experiences in the USA and England?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a growing interest in measuring patients’ experiences in health care. In several European countries, surveys are taking place to map the quality of care as perceived by patients. In a number of countries, this is part of a systematic programme of work that is undertaken at regular intervals. According to a review commissioned by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), this is the case in Denmark, Norway, England and The Netherlands. Outside Europe, systematic evaluation of patients’ experiences takes place in Canada and the USA. In addition to these national programmes, the Commonwealth Fund, the Picker Institute Europe and the World Health Organization (WHO) have undertaken cross-national comparisons of patients’ experiences.1 The USA and England have by far the longest tradition of measuring patients’ experiences through, respectively, the American CAHPS (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) surveys and the surveys of the Picker Institute Europe for the English NHS. These programmes can serve as examples for European health care systems when it comes to measuring patients’ experiences. Countries that wish to embark on systematic and regular evaluations of quality of care from the perspective of patients can learn from the American and English experiences in this field. What are the main lessons learned in these countries? In the 1990s, patient satisfaction had become a widely accepted outcome measure in trials testing new drugs or interventions. In addition to that, patient satisfaction surveys were used to measure the quality of care from the perspective of the health care user. In the second half of the 1990s, however, it became clear that as a tool for quality improvement, patient satisfaction surveys were neither very sensitive nor very useful. One of the problems with patient or consumer satisfaction is its ambiguity. Satisfaction is a multidimensional concept, based …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it