Published in:
01-02-2019 | Original Research
Improving Patients’ Choice of Clinician by Including Roll-up Measures in Public Healthcare Quality Reports: an Online Experiment
Authors:
Jennifer L. Cerully, Ph.D., Andrew M. Parker, Ph.D., Lise Rybowski, M.B.A., Mark Schlesinger, Ph.D., Dale Shaller, M.P.A., Rachel Grob, Ph.D., Melissa L. Finucane, Ph.D., Steven C. Martino, Ph.D.
Published in:
Journal of General Internal Medicine
|
Issue 2/2019
Login to get access
Abstract
Background
Public reports on healthcare quality typically include complex data. To lower the cognitive burden of interpreting these data, some report designers create summary, or roll-up, measures combining multiple indicators of quality into one score. Little is known about how the availability of roll-ups affects clinician choice.
Objective
To determine how presenting quality scores at different levels of aggregation affects patients’ clinician choices.
Design
We conducted a simulated clinician-choice experiment, randomizing participants to three versions of a public reporting website and comparing their clinician choices. One version aggregated all clinician-level quality measures into roll-ups, the second provided disaggregated (drill-down) scores only, and the third offered both roll-ups and drill-downs.
Participants
Five hundred fifty panelists drawn from a probability-based Internet panel.
Main Measures
We assessed the amount of effort participants exerted by tracking the length of time spent on the website and the number of concrete actions taken on the website (e.g., clicking items). We evaluated decision quality by measuring whether participants selected a clinician who performed more poorly than others and incongruence between participants’ stated preferences for dimensions of quality and their chosen clinician’s performance on those dimensions.
Key Results
Participants seeing drill-downs alone (mean = 14.9) or with roll-ups (mean = 19.2) took more actions than those who saw roll-ups alone (mean = 10.5) (ps < 0.05). However, participants seeing only drill-downs made poorer choices than those who saw roll-ups alone or with drill-downs. More participants seeing drill-downs chose a clinician who was outperformed (36.3% versus 23.4% [roll-up] and 25.6% [drill-down + roll-up], ps < 0.05) and made choices incongruent with stated preferences (51.2% versus 45.6% [roll-up] and 47.5% [drill-down + roll-up], ps < 0.05). The distinction between roll-up and drill-down was somewhat stronger for sicker participants.
Conclusions
Our results suggest that roll-ups in healthcare quality reports, alone or as a complement to drill-downs, can help patients make better decisions for themselves.