PubMed · 7822115
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
S Ramon. 1994. Needs not diagnosis.. https://doi.org/10.1177/002076409404000308
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVES: To gain insight into similarities and differences in patient evaluations of quality of primary care across 12 European countries and to correlate patient evaluations with WHO health system performance measures (for example, responsiveness) of these countries. METHODS: Patient evaluations were derived from a series of Quote (QUality of care Through patients' Eyes) instruments designed to measure the quality of primary care. Various research groups provided a total sample of 5133 patients from 12 countries: Belarus, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom, and Ukraine. Intraclass correlations of 10 Quote items were calculated to measure differences between countries. The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance performance measures in the same countries were correlated with mean Quote scores. FINDINGS: Intra-class correlation coefficients ranged from low to very high, which indicated little variation between countries in some respects (for example, primary care providers have a good understanding of patients' problems in all countries) and large variation in other respects (for example, with respect to prescription of medication and communication between primary care providers). Most correlations between mean Quote scores per country and WHO performance measures were positive. The highest correlation (0.86) was between the primary care provider's understanding of patients' problems and responsiveness according to WHO. CONCLUSIONS: Patient evaluations of the quality of primary care showed large differences across countries and related positively to WHO's performance measures of health care systems.
OBJECTIVES: The conditions under which research utilization leads to policy impact are an important issue in health promotion. This analysis tests the assumption that utilization is positively associated with policy impact only if both political will (i.e., policy opportunities) and social strategies (in intervention and implementation) are present. METHODS: A survey of 719 policymakers involved in four policies was conducted in six European countries. Policy impact (output, i.e., program implementation, and outcome, i.e., effects on behavior) and its proposed determinants were analyzed. RESULTS: Regression analyses reveal limited cross-national differences in research utilization, but show comparably high use in policies with a pathogenic focus. Utilization is associated with impact only if political will is lacking; for outcome, this tends to depend on social strategies. Political will is the strongest determinant of impact. CONCLUSIONS: Research utilization is not supporting health promotion policy impact if political will is favorable, but if it is poor; political will itself is the crucial determinant of impact. The study contributes to the "research utilization"-field by showing that research utilization may partially compensate for lack of, rather than depend on, political will.