Hvem kaster terningen? : en feltteoretisk studie av den norske populærmusikkritikken

I denne oppgaven har jeg forsøkt å kartlegge dagens norske felt for populærmusikkritikk i et feltanalytisk perspektiv med utgangspunkt i teoriene til den franske sosiologen Pierre Bourdieu. I lys av dets historiske utvikling har jeg ønsket å kartlegge hva som kjennetegner dagens felt; dets system av likheter, forskjeller og motsetninger som relaterer anmelderne og deres anmeldelser til hverandre. Gjennom kvalitative dybdeintervjuer med tolv profilerte musikkanmeldere, avdekker studien at dagens norske felt for populærmusikkritikk, hovedsakelig lever sitt liv innenfor (nett)aviser som Aftenposten, Dagbladet, Dagsavisen og VG. Anmelderne som jobber i disse avisene har mange likhetstrekk med hensyn til bakgrunn, utdanning osv., og de jobber innenfor redaksjoner med relativ lik praksis i forhold til utvalg (av plater som skal anmeldes), format, tidsfrister, alder og kjønnsfordeling. Disse likhetene er med på å danne en egen logikk som gjør at anmelderne vurderer musikk ut fra egne musikkjournalistiske kriterier. Men på tross av mange fellestrekk er det allikevel viktig for de ulike avisene og deres anmeldere å posisjonere seg i forhold til hverandre. Studien viser blant annet at de ulike avisene har forskjellige holdninger med hensyn til hvilke artister som bør få mest oppmerksomhet. Anmelderne viser seg også å danne forskjellige posisjoner med hensyn til hva som er bra og dårlig musikk, og hva som kjennetegner en god musikkanmeldelse. Disse forskjellene viser seg imidlertid å være mer knyttet til variabler som alder og kjønn, enn til hvilken avis de forskjellige musikkanmelderne jobber for

Lack of patients? – a hypothesis for understanding discrepancies between hospital resources and productivity

BACKGROUND: Despite a substantial increase in hospital resources, increased hospital admissions and out-patient visits, long waiting lists have been a significant problem in Norwegian health care. A detailed analysis of the development in resource allocation and productivity at St. Olavs University Hospital in central Norway was therefore undertaken. METHODS: Resource allocation and patient volume was analysed during the period 1995 to 2001. Data were analysed both for emergency and elective admissions as well as outpatient visits specified into new referrals and follow-up consultations. RESULTS: Full time employee equivalents for doctors and nurses increased by 36.6% and 25.9%, respectively, and all employees by 28.1%. However, admitted patients, outpatient consultations and surgical procedures only increased by 10%, 15% and 8.3%, respectively. Thus, the productivity for each hospital employee, defined as operations pr. surgeon, outpatient consultations pr. doctor etc. was significantly reduced. A striking finding was that although the number of outpatient consultations increased, the number of new referrals actually went down and the whole increase in activity at the outpatient clinics could be explained by a substantial increase in follow-up consultations. This trend was more evident in the surgical departments, where some departments actually showed a reduction in total outpatient consultations. CONCLUSION: In view of the slow increase in hospital activity in spite of a significant increase in resources, it can be speculated that patient volume might be a limiting factor for hospital activity. The health market (patient population) might not be big enough in relation to the investments in increased production capacity (equipment and manpower)

The association between demographic factors, user reported experiences and user satisfaction: results from three casualty clinics in Norway

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>User reported experiences and satisfaction are increasingly used as basis for quality indicators in the health sector. However, there is limited understanding of factors associated with user reported experiences and satisfaction with casualty clinics.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A random sample of 542 patients that had contacted any of three casualty clinics from mid April to mid May 2008 was mailed a questionnaire. A reminder was sent to non-respondents after six weeks. Descriptive statistics for four user reported experiences scales and 20 single items are presented. Multivariate regression analysis was used to assess associations between background variables and user reported experiences, and between user reported experiences and user satisfaction.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>225 (41.5%) patients, carers and guardians returned a completed questionnaire. Users reported most positive experiences with the doctor services and the nursing services at the casualty clinics; on a scale from 0 to 100, where 100 is the best possible experience the doctor scale was 82 and the nursing scale 81. Users reported least positive experiences with the organization of the casualty clinic, with a scale score of 65. Self perceived health was associated with user satisfaction, while self perceived health and age were associated with user reported experiences with organization of the clinics. A range of user reported experience domains were related to user satisfaction, after controlling for socio-demographic variables, including experiences with doctor services at the clinics, organization of the clinics, information and self perceived incorrect treatment.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Users report positive experiences with the three casualty clinics, with organization as the aspect with largest improvement potential. The importance of age and health status for users' experiences and satisfaction with casualty clinics was shown, but a range of user reported experiences with the clinics were the most important predictors for user satisfaction.</p

Are waiting times for hospital admissions affected by patients' choices and mobility?

Background Waiting times for elective care have been considered a serious problem in many health care systems. A topic of particular concern has been how administrative boundaries act as barriers to efficient patient flows. In Norway, a policy combining patient's choice of hospital and removal of restriction on referrals was introduced in 2001, thereby creating a nationwide competitive referral system for elective hospital treatment. The article aims to analyse if patient choice and an increased opportunity for geographical mobility has reduced waiting times for individual elective patients. Methods A survey conducted among Norwegian somatic patients in 2004 gave information about whether the choice of hospital was made by the individual patient or by others. Survey data was then merged with administrative data on which hospital that actually performed the treatment. The administrative data also gave individual waiting time for hospital admission. Demographics, socio-economic position, and medical need were controlled for to determine the effect of choice and mobility upon waiting time. Several statistical models, including one with instrument variables for choice and mobility, were run. Results Patients who had neither chosen hospital individually nor bypassed the local hospital for other reasons faced the longest waiting times. Next were patients who individually had chosen the local hospital, followed by patients who had not made an individual choice, but had bypassed the local hospital for other reasons. Patients who had made a choice to bypass the local hospitals waited on average 11 weeks less than the first group. Conclusion The analysis indicates that a policy combining increased opportunity for hospital choice with the removal of rules restricting referrals can reduce waiting times for individual elective patients. Results were robust over different model specifications

"Fighting the system": Families caring for ventilator-dependent children and adults with complex health care needs at home

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>An increasing number of individuals with complex health care needs now receive life-long and life-prolonging ventilatory support at home. Family members often take on the role of primary caregivers. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of families giving advanced care to family members dependent on home mechanical ventilation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using qualitative research methods, a Grounded Theory influenced approach was used to explore the families' experiences. A total of 15 family members with 11 ventilator-dependent individuals (three children and eight adults) were recruited for 10 in-depth interviews.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The core category, "fighting the system," became the central theme as family members were asked to describe their experiences. In addition, we identified three subcategories, "lack of competence and continuity", "being indispensable" and "worth fighting for". This study revealed no major differences in the families' experiences that were dependent on whether the ventilator-dependent individual was a child or an adult.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>These findings show that there is a large gap between family members' expectations and what the community health care services are able to provide, even when almost unlimited resources are available. A number of measures are needed to reduce the burden on these family members and to make hospital care at home possible. In the future, the gap between what the health care can potentially provide and what they can provide in real life will rapidly increase. New proposals to limit the extremely costly provision of home mechanical ventilation in Norway will trigger new ethical dilemmas that should be studied further.</p

Rasch analysis of the Psychiatric Out-Patient Experiences Questionnaire (POPEQ)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Psychiatric Out-Patient Experiences Questionnaire (POPEQ) is an 11-item core measure of psychiatric out-patients experiences of the perceived outcome of the treatment, the quality of interaction with the clinician, and the quality of information provision. The POPEQ was found to have evidence for reliability and validity following the application of classical test theory but has not previously been assessed by Rasch analysis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Two national postal surveys of psychiatric outpatients took place in Norway in 2004 and 2007. The performance of the POPEQ, including item functioning and differential item functioning, was assessed by Rasch analysis. Principal component analysis of item residuals was used to assess the presence of subdimensions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>6,677 (43.3%) and 11,085 (35.2%) psychiatric out patients responded to the questionnaire in 2004 and 2007, respectively. All items in the scale were retained after the Rasch analysis. The resulting scale had reasonably good fit to the Rasch model. The items performed the same for the two survey years and there was no differential item functioning relating to patient characteristics. Principal component analysis of the residuals confirmed that the measure to a high degree is unidimensional. However, the data also reflects three potential subscales, each relating to one of the three included aspects of health care.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The POPEQ had excellent psychometric properties and Rasch analysis further supported the construct validity of the scale by also identifying the three subdimensions originally included as components in the instrument development. The 11-item instrument is recommended in future research on psychiatric out-patient experiences. Future development may lead to the construction of more precise measures of the three subdomains that the POPEQ is based on.</p

The Generic Short Patient Experiences Questionnaire (GS-PEQ): identification of core items from a survey in Norway

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Questionnaires are commonly used to collect patient, or user, experiences with health care encounters; however, their adaption to specific target groups limits comparison between groups. We present the construction of a generic questionnaire (maximum of ten questions) for user evaluation across a range of health care services.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Based on previous testing of six group-specific questionnaires, we first constructed a generic questionnaire with 23 items related to user experiences. All questions included a "not applicable" response option, as well as a follow-up question about the item's importance. Nine user groups from one health trust were surveyed. Seven groups received questionnaires by mail and two by personal distribution. Selection of core questions was based on three criteria: applicability (proportion "not applicable"), importance (mean scores on follow-up questions), and comprehensiveness (content coverage, maximum two items per dimension).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>1324 questionnaires were returned providing subsample sizes ranging from 52 to 323. Ten questions were excluded because the proportion of "not applicable" responses exceeded 20% in at least one user group. The number of remaining items was reduced to ten by applying the two other criteria. The final short questionnaire included items on outcome (2), clinician services (2), user involvement (2), incorrect treatment (1), information (1), organisation (1), and accessibility (1).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The Generic Short Patient Experiences Questionnaire (GS-PEQ) is a short, generic set of questions on user experiences with specialist health care that covers important topics for a range of groups. It can be used alone or with other instruments in quality assessment or in research. The psychometric properties and the relevance of the GS-PEQ in other health care settings and countries need further evaluation.</p