Dataset Information

Application of Andersen's behavioural model of health services use: a scoping review with a focus on qualitative health services research.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Qualitative methods have become integral in health services research, and Andersen's behavioural model of health services use (BMHSU) is one of the most commonly employed models of health service utilisation. The model focuses on three core factors to explain healthcare utilisation: predisposing, enabling and need factors. A recent overview of the application of the BMHSU is lacking, particularly regarding its application in qualitative research. Therefore, we provide (1) a descriptive overview of the application of the BMHSU in health services research in general and (2) a qualitative synthesis on the (un)suitability of the model in qualitative health services research.

Methods

We searched five databases from March to April 2019, and in April 2020. For inclusion, each study had to focus on individuals ≥18 years of age and to cite the BMHSU, a modified version of the model, or the three core factors that constitute the model, regardless of study design, or publication type. We used MS Excel to perform descriptive statistics, and applied MAXQDA 2020 as part of a qualitative content analysis.

Results

From a total of 6319 results, we identified 1879 publications dealing with the BMSHU. The main methodological approach was quantitative (89%). More than half of the studies are based on the BMHSU from 1995. 77 studies employed a qualitative design, the BMHSU was applied to justify the theoretical background (62%), structure the data collection (40%) and perform data coding (78%). Various publications highlight the usefulness of the BMHSU for qualitative data, while others criticise the model for several reasons (eg, its lack of cultural or psychosocial factors).

Conclusions

The application of different and older models of healthcare utilisation hinders comparative health services research. Future research should consider quantitative or qualitative study designs and account for the most current and comprehensive model of the BMHSU.

SUBMITTER: Lederle M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8103375 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the extent and nature of evidence on the use of the environmental scan (ES) in the health services delivery literature.DesignScoping review.MethodsThis scoping review followed the five-stage scoping review methodology outlined by Khalil et al. A Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies was completed. Seven electronic databases and the grey literature were searched. Pairs of researchers independently performed two levels of screening and data extraction. Data were analysed using qualitative content and thematic analysis.ResultsNinety-six studies were included in the scoping review. Researchers conducted ESs for many purposes, the most common being to examine the current state of programmes, services or policies. Recommendations were informed by ESs in 20% of studies. Most common data collection methods were literature review (71%), key informant or semistructured interviews (46%) and surveys (35%). Over half (53%) of the studies used a combination of passive (looking at information eg, literature, policies, guidelines) and active (looking for information eg, surveys, interviews) approaches to data collection. Person sources of data (eg, healthcare stakeholders, community representatives) and non-person sources of data (eg, documents, electronic databases, the web) were drawn on to a similar extent. The thematic analysis of the definitions/descriptions yielded several themes including instrument of discovery, knowledge synthesis, forward-looking and decision making. Research gaps identified included absence of a standard definition, inconsistencies in terminology and lack of guiding frameworks in the health services delivery context.ConclusionESs were conducted to gather evidence and to help inform decision making on a range of policy and health services delivery issues across the continuum of care. Consistency in terminology, a consensus definition and more guidance on ES design may help provide structure for researchers and other stakeholders, and ultimately advance ES as a methodological approach. A working definition of ES in a health services delivery context is presented.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The environmental scan has been described as an important tool to inform decision-making on policy, planning and programme development in the healthcare sector. Despite the wide adoption of environmental scans, there is no consensus on a working definition within the health services delivery context and methodological guidance on the design and implementation of this approach is lacking in the literature. The objectives of this study are to map the extent, range and nature of evidence that describe the definitions, characteristics, conceptualisations, theoretical underpinnings, study limitations and other features of the environmental scan in the health services delivery literature and to propose a working definition specific to this context. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This protocol describes a scoping review based on the methodology outlined by Khalil and colleagues. A comprehensive search strategy was developed by experienced health science librarians in consultation with the research team. A Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) was completed. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full-text articles and select studies meeting the inclusion criteria from seven electronic databases: Academic Search Premier, Canadian Business & Current Affairs (CBCA), CINAHL, ERIC, Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. The grey literature and reference lists of included articles will also be searched. The data will be analysed and presented in tabular format, and will include a descriptive numerical summary as well as a qualitative thematic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This protocol provides an audit trail for a scoping review that will advance understanding about the environmental scan and its application in the health services delivery context. The review will propose a working definition and will inform future research to explore the development of a conceptual framework in this context. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations. The scoping review does not require ethics approval.

Project description:PurposeThis study is a scoping review of the different methods used to measure rurality in the health services research (HSR) literature.MethodsWe identified peer-reviewed empirical studies from 2010-2020 from seven leading HSR journals, including the Journal of Rural Health, that used any definition to measure rurality as a part of their analysis. From each study, we identified the geographic unit (e.g., county, zip code) and definition (e.g., Rural Urban Continuum Codes, Rural Urban Commuting Areas) used to classify categories of rurality. We analyzed whether geographic units and definitions used to classify rurality differed by focus area of studies, including costs, quality, and access to care. Lastly, we examined the number of rural categories used by authors to assess rural areas.FindingsIn 103 included studies, five different geographic units and 11 definitions were used to measure rurality. The most common geographic units used to measure rurality were county (n = 59, 57%), which was used most frequently in studies examining cost (n = 12, 75%) and access (n = 33, 57.9%). Rural Urban Commuting Area codes were the most common definition used to measure rurality for studies examining access (n = 13, 22.8%) and quality (n = 10, 44%). The majority of included studies made rural versus urban comparisons (n = 82, 80%) as opposed to focusing on rural populations only (n = 21, 20%). Among studies that compared rural and urban populations, most studies used only one category to identify rural locations (n = 49 of 82 studies, 60%).ConclusionGeographic units and definitions to determine rurality were used inconsistently within and across studies with an HSR focus. This finding may affect how health disparities by rural location are determined and thus how resources and federal funds are allocated. Future research should focus on developing a standardized system to determine under what circumstances researchers should use different geographic units and methods to determine rurality by HSR focus area.

Project description:BackgroundSimple visualizations in health research data, such as scatter plots, heat maps, and bar charts, typically present relationships between 2 variables. Interactive visualization methods allow for multiple related facets such as numerous risk factors to be studied simultaneously, leading to data insights through exploring trends and patterns from complex big health care data. The technique presents a powerful tool that can be used in combination with statistical analysis for knowledge discovery, hypothesis generation and testing, and decision support.ObjectiveThe primary objective of this scoping review is to describe and summarize the evidence of interactive visualization applications, methods, and tools being used in population health and health services research (HSR) and their subdomains in the last 15 years, from January 1, 2005, to March 30, 2019. Our secondary objective is to describe the use cases, metrics, frameworks used, settings, target audience, goals, and co-design of applications.MethodsWe adapted standard scoping review guidelines with a peer-reviewed search strategy: 2 independent researchers at each stage of screening and abstraction, with a third independent researcher to arbitrate conflicts and validate findings. A comprehensive abstraction platform was built to capture the data from diverse bodies of literature, primarily from the computer science and health care sectors. After screening 11,310 articles, we present findings from 56 applications from interrelated areas of population health and HSR, as well as their subdomains such as epidemiologic surveillance, health resource planning, access, and use and costs among diverse clinical and demographic populations.ResultsIn this companion review to our earlier systematic synthesis of the literature on visual analytics applications, we present findings in 6 major themes of interactive visualization applications developed for 8 major problem categories. We found a wide application of interactive visualization methods, the major ones being epidemiologic surveillance for infectious disease, resource planning, health service monitoring and quality, and studying medication use patterns. The data sources included mostly secondary administrative and electronic medical record data. In addition, at least two-thirds of the applications involved participatory co-design approaches while introducing a distinct category, embedded research, within co-design initiatives. These applications were in response to an identified need for data-driven insights into knowledge generation and decision support. We further discuss the opportunities stemming from the use of interactive visualization methods in studying global health; inequities, including social determinants of health; and other related areas. We also allude to the challenges in the uptake of these methods.ConclusionsVisualization in health has strong historical roots, with an upward trend in the use of these methods in population health and HSR. Such applications are being fast used by academic and health care agencies for knowledge discovery, hypotheses generation, and decision support.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/14019.

Project description:BackgroundVisual analytics (VA) promotes the understanding of data with visual, interactive techniques, using analytic and visual engines. The analytic engine includes automated techniques, whereas common visual outputs include flow maps and spatiotemporal hot spots.ObjectiveThis scoping review aims to address a gap in the literature, with the specific objective to synthesize literature on the use of VA tools, techniques, and frameworks in interrelated health care areas of population health and health services research (HSR).MethodsUsing the 2018 PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, the review focuses on peer-reviewed journal articles and full conference papers from 2005 to March 2019. Two researchers were involved at each step, and another researcher arbitrated disagreements. A comprehensive abstraction platform captured data from diverse bodies of the literature, primarily from the computer and health sciences.ResultsAfter screening 11,310 articles, findings from 55 articles were synthesized under the major headings of visual and analytic engines, visual presentation characteristics, tools used and their capabilities, application to health care areas, data types and sources, VA frameworks, frameworks used for VA applications, availability and innovation, and co-design initiatives. We found extensive application of VA methods used in areas of epidemiology, surveillance and modeling, health services access, use, and cost analyses. All articles included a distinct analytic and visualization engine, with varying levels of detail provided. Most tools were prototypes, with 5 in use at the time of publication. Seven articles presented methodological frameworks. Toward consistent reporting, we present a checklist, with an expanded definition for VA applications in health care, to assist researchers in sharing research for greater replicability. We summarized the results in a Tableau dashboard.ConclusionsWith the increasing availability and generation of big health care data, VA is a fast-growing method applied to complex health care data. What makes VA innovative is its capability to process multiple, varied data sources to demonstrate trends and patterns for exploratory analysis, leading to knowledge generation and decision support. This is the first review to bridge a critical gap in the literature on VA methods applied to the areas of population health and HSR, which further indicates possible avenues for the adoption of these methods in the future. This review is especially important in the wake of COVID-19 surveillance and response initiatives, where many VA products have taken center stage.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/14019.

Project description:ObjectiveTo count and describe the elements that overlap (ie, present in two or more) and diverge between models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research. Our specific research question was 'what are the elements that underlie models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research?'DesignScoping review.Data sourcesOn 6-7 July 2021, we searched six electronic databases (ie, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence Based Practice Database, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Scopus) and Google Scholar for published literature, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, Google, and key agencies' websites for unpublished (ie, grey) literature, with no date restrictions. These searches were supplemented by snowball sampling.Eligibility criteriaWe included published and unpublished literature that presented (a) models or frameworks (b) of patient engagement (c) in health services research. We excluded articles unavailable as full text or not written in English.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data from included articles using an a priori developed standardised form. Data were synthesised using both quantitative (ie, counts) and qualitative (ie, mapping) analyses.ResultsWe identified a total of 8069 articles and ultimately included 14 models and frameworks in the review. These models and frameworks were comprised of 18 overlapping and 57 diverging elements, that were organised into six conceptual categories (ie, principles, foundational components, contexts, actions, levels and outcomes) and spanned intrapersonal, interpersonal, process, environmental, and health systems and outcomes domains.ConclusionsThere is little overlap between the elements that comprise existing models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research. Those seeking to apply these models and frameworks should consider the 'fit' of each element, by conceptual category and domain, within the context of their study.

Project description:Methodologically sound mixed methods research can improve our understanding of health services by providing a more comprehensive picture of health services than either method can alone. This study describes the frequency of mixed methods in published health services research and compares the presence of methodological components indicative of rigorous approaches across mixed methods, qualitative, and quantitative articles.All empirical articles (n = 1,651) published between 2003 and 2007 from four top-ranked health services journals.All mixed methods articles (n = 47) and random samples of qualitative and quantitative articles were evaluated to identify reporting of key components indicating rigor for each method, based on accepted standards for evaluating the quality of research reports (e.g., use of p-values in quantitative reports, description of context in qualitative reports, and integration in mixed method reports). We used chi-square tests to evaluate differences between article types for each component.Mixed methods articles comprised 2.85 percent (n = 47) of empirical articles, quantitative articles 90.98 percent (n = 1,502), and qualitative articles 6.18 percent (n = 102). There was a statistically significant difference (?(2) (1) = 12.20, p = .0005, Cramer's V = 0.09, odds ratio = 1.49 [95% confidence interval = 1,27, 1.74]) in the proportion of quantitative methodological components present in mixed methods compared to quantitative papers (21.94 versus 47.07 percent, respectively) but no statistically significant difference (?(2) (1) = 0.02, p = .89, Cramer's V = 0.01) in the proportion of qualitative methodological components in mixed methods compared to qualitative papers (21.34 versus 25.47 percent, respectively).Few published health services research articles use mixed methods. The frequency of key methodological components is variable. Suggestions are provided to increase the transparency of mixed methods studies and the presence of key methodological components in published reports.