Dataset Information

Multi-stakeholder perspectives in defining health services quality indicators and dimensions: a concept mapping based comparison for cataract care between Singapore and The Netherlands.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This study aims to advance understanding of globally valid versus country-specific quality dimensions and indicators, as perceived by relevant stakeholders. It specifically addresses patient-level indicators for cataract surgery.

Design

A mixed-methods case study comparing Singapore and The Netherlands SETTING: Singapore (2017-2019) and The Netherlands (2014-2015).

Participants

Stakeholder representatives of cataract care in Singapore and The Netherlands.

Intervention

Based on the previously identified complete set of stakeholders in The Netherlands, we identified stakeholders of cataract care in Singapore. Stakeholder representatives then established a multi-stakeholder perspective on the quality of cataract care using a concept mapping approach. This yielded a multidimensional cluster map based on multivariate statistical analyses. Consensus-based quality dimensions were subsequently defined during a plenary session. Thereafter, Singaporean dimensions were matched with dimensions obtained in The Netherlands to identify commonalities and differences.

Main outcome measure

Health-services quality dimensions of cataract care.

Results

19 Singaporean stakeholders representing patients, general practitioners, ophthalmologists, nurses, care providers, researchers and clinical auditors defined health-services quality of cataract care using the following eight dimensions: clinical outcome, patient outcomes, surgical process, surgical safety, patient experience, access, cost and standards of care. Compared with the Dutch results, 61% of the indicators were allocated to dimensions of comparable names and compositions. Considerable differences also existed in the composition of some dimensions and the importance attached to indicators.

Conclusions and relevance

This study on cataract care in Singapore and The Netherlands shows that cataract care quality measurement instruments can share a common international core. At the same time, it emphasises the importance of taking a country-specific multi-stakeholder approach to quality definition and measurement. Complementing an international core set with country-specific measures is required to ensure that the included dimensions and indicators adequately capture the country-specific quality views.

SUBMITTER: Stolk-Vos A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8031691 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Integrating evidence-based mental health services into primary care has been identified as one strategy for overcoming the treatment gap in low and middle-income countries, yet their uptake into standard practice remains poor. The purpose of this study was to understand stakeholder perspectives regarding barriers and facilitators to integration of mental health services into primary care settings in Northern Iraq. Methods:Using a convergent mixed methods study design, quantitative and qualitative questionnaires assessed respondent perceptions of implementation factors under the domains of Autonomy, Acceptability, Appropriateness, Feasibility, Penetration/Accessibility, Sustainability, and Organizational Climate. We interviewed four types of stakeholders: clients, providers of mental health services, non-mental health (MH) staff working at the centers, and center directors. Interviews were conducted with clients at the completion of services, and with all other stakeholder groups in the latter half of the first year of program implementation, by Kurdish-speaking interviewer pairs. Qualitative and quantitative data were analyzed separately and merged using qualitative data transformation to quantify frequency of theme and integrate with quantitative findings through woven narrative. Results:123 clients, 26 providers, 40 non-MH staff, and 12 directors provided data. Positive perceptions of the program's acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and positive impacts were reported across all stakeholder levels. Providers reported that the program length (8-12 sessions) was a challenge. Clients described logistical challenges (e.g.: transportation, childcare, home duties); support from family and friends appeared to be critical. Lack of private space, insufficient staffing, and need for greater government support were also important issues. Conclusions:This mixed methods study is unique in its inclusion of non-MH staff and director perspectives on integration of mental health services in primary care clinics. Their inclusion proved vital since they included critical human resource barriers to feasibility. Providers reported generally positive integration experiences but that some colleagues (clinic staff not involved in mental health services) were unsupportive. Most non-MH staff were supportive, but some did report negative impacts on their working environment. Future studies of integration of mental health services into other service platforms should include the perspectives of stakeholders not involved in provision of mental health services.