Towards quality criteria for regional public health reporting: concept mapping with Dutch experts

Background: In the Netherlands, municipal health assessments are carried out by 28 Regional Health Services, serving 418 municipalities. In the absence of guidelines, regional public health reports were developed in two pilot regions on the basis of the model and experience of national health reporting. Though they were well received and positively evaluated, it was not clear which specific characteristics determined ‘good public health reporting’. Therefore, this study was set up to develop a theoretical framework for the quality of regional public health reporting in The Netherlands. Methods: Using concept mapping as a standardized tool for conceptualization, 35 relevant reporting experts formulated short statements in two different brainstorming sessions, describing specific quality criteria of regional public health reports. After the removal of duplicates, the list was supplemented with international criteria, and the statements were sent to each participant for rating and sorting. The results were processed statistically and represented graphically. The output was discussed and interpreted, leading to the final concept map. Results: The final concept map consisted of 97 criteria, grouped into 13 clusters, and plotted in two dimensions: a ‘product’ dimension, ranging from ‘production’ to ‘content’, and a ‘context’ dimension, ranging from ‘science’ to ‘policy’. The three most important clusters were: (i) ‘solution orientation’, (ii) ‘policy relevance’ and (iii) ‘policy impact’. Conclusion: This study provided a theoretical framework for the quality of regional public health reporting, indicating relevant domains and criteria. Further work should translate domains and criteria into operational indicators for evaluating regional public health reports

The estimation of patients' views on organizational aspects of a general dental practice by general dental practitioners: a survey study

Contains fulltext : 96429.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Considering the changes in dental healthcare, such as the increasing assertiveness of patients, the introduction of new dental professionals, and regulated competition, it becomes more important that general dental practitioners (GDPs) take patients' views into account. The aim of the study was to compare patients' views on organizational aspects of general dental practices with those of GDPs and with GDPs' estimation of patients' views. METHODS: In a survey study, patients and GDPs provided their views on organizational aspects of a general dental practice. In a second, separate survey, GDPs were invited to estimate patients' views on 22 organizational aspects of a general dental practice. RESULTS: For 4 of the 22 aspects, patients and GDPs had the same views, and GDPs estimated patients' views reasonably well: 'Dutch-speaking GDP', 'guarantee on treatment', 'treatment by the same GDP', and 'reminder of routine oral examination'. For 2 aspects ('quality assessment' and 'accessibility for disabled patients') patients and GDPs had the same standards, although the GDPs underestimated the patients' standards. Patients had higher standards than GDPs for 7 aspects and lower standards than GDPs for 8 aspects. CONCLUSION: On most aspects GDPs and patient have different views, except for social desirable aspects. Given the increasing assertiveness of patients, it is startling the GDP's estimated only half of the patients' views correctly. The findings of the study can assist GDPs in adapting their organizational services to better meet the preferences of their patients and to improve the communication towards patients