• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

结语:CAHPS示范与评估的早期经验教训。健康计划消费者评估研究。

Epilogue: Early lessons from CAHPS Demonstrations and Evaluations. Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study.

作者信息

Carman K L, Short P F, Farley D O, Schnaier J A, Elliott D B, Gallagher P M

机构信息

Health and Social Policy Division, Research Triangle Institute, Washington, DC 20036-3209, USA.

出版信息

Med Care. 1999 Mar;37(3 Suppl):MS97-105.

PMID:10098564
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) was developed to provide an integrated set of tested, standardized surveys to obtain meaningful information from health plan enrollees and their experiences. Many organizations began to implement CAHPS in 1997. Formal evaluations of the experiences of three demonstration sites with implementing CAHPS (ie, process evaluations) and the impact of CAHPS on consumer's choices (ie, outcome evaluations) were conducted. This article reports on the early findings and feedback from our process evaluations about the sites' experiences with using CAHPS. Results are presented from the first round demonstration sites, including the lessons learned during the demonstrations. Our plans for future demonstrations and evaluations are included.

METHODS

A similar evaluation design and instruments were used across demonstration sites. The process evaluation to monitor program intervention included on-site interviews, off-site review of documents, and focus groups with consumers.

RESULTS

There are 4 early results from the CAHPS demonstrations: (1) the CAHPS survey covers topics of importance to sponsors, is of reasonable length, and can be administered quickly; (2) the report templates are being used effectively, but sponsors vary widely in their preferences for summarizing and presenting CAHPS ratings; (3) standardized or off-the-shelf products are aspects of CAHPS that sponsors value highly, while emphasizing need for further development; and (4) because surveys like CAHPS require multiple within-plan samples to make plan comparisons, they require a substantial investment and may be affordable only for large sponsors.

CONCLUSION

The first round CAHPS demonstrations highlighted the strengths of the integrated surveys and the areas for improving the products and the implementation process.

摘要

目标

消费者健康计划评估研究(CAHPS)旨在提供一套经过测试的、标准化的综合调查问卷,以从健康计划参保者及其经历中获取有意义的信息。许多组织于1997年开始实施CAHPS。对三个实施CAHPS的示范点的经验进行了正式评估(即过程评估),并评估了CAHPS对消费者选择的影响(即结果评估)。本文报告了我们对这些示范点使用CAHPS的过程评估的早期发现和反馈。展示了第一轮示范点的结果,包括示范过程中吸取的经验教训。还包括我们未来示范和评估的计划。

方法

在各个示范点使用了类似的评估设计和工具。监测项目干预的过程评估包括现场访谈、文件的非现场审查以及与消费者的焦点小组讨论。

结果

CAHPS示范有4个早期结果:(1)CAHPS调查问卷涵盖了对主办方重要的主题,长度合理,且能快速实施;(2)报告模板得到了有效使用,但主办方在总结和呈现CAHPS评分的偏好上差异很大;(3)标准化或现成产品是主办方高度重视的CAHPS的方面,同时强调需要进一步开发;(4)由于像CAHPS这样的调查需要多个计划内样本进行计划比较,它们需要大量投资,可能只有大型主办方才能负担得起。

结论

第一轮CAHPS示范突出了综合调查问卷的优势以及产品和实施过程中需要改进的领域。

相似文献

1
Epilogue: Early lessons from CAHPS Demonstrations and Evaluations. Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study.结语:CAHPS示范与评估的早期经验教训。健康计划消费者评估研究。
Med Care. 1999 Mar;37(3 Suppl):MS97-105.
2
Do consumer reports of health plan quality affect health plan selection?消费者对健康计划质量的报告是否会影响健康计划的选择?
Health Serv Res. 2000 Dec;35(5 Pt 1):933-47.
3
Reporting of CAHPS quality information to medicare beneficiaries.向医疗保险受益人报告CAHPS质量信息。
Health Serv Res. 2001 Jul;36(3):477-88.
4
Made in the USA: the import of American Consumer Assessment of Health Plan Surveys (CAHPS) into the Dutch social insurance system.美国制造:将美国医疗计划消费者评估调查(CAHPS)引入荷兰社会保险体系。
Eur J Public Health. 2006 Dec;16(6):652-9. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckl023. Epub 2006 Mar 8.
5
Using existing population-based data sets to measure the American Academy of Pediatrics definition of medical home for all children and children with special health care needs.利用现有的基于人群的数据集,衡量美国儿科学会对所有儿童及有特殊医疗保健需求儿童的医疗之家定义。
Pediatrics. 2004 May;113(5 Suppl):1529-37.
6
The use of cognitive testing to develop and evaluate CAHPS 1.0 core survey items. Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study.使用认知测试来开发和评估CAHPS 1.0核心调查问卷项目。医疗计划消费者评估研究。
Med Care. 1999 Mar;37(3 Suppl):MS10-21. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199903001-00002.
7
Making survey results easy to report to consumers: how reporting needs guided survey design in CAHPS. Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study.让调查结果易于向消费者报告:报告需求如何指导“医疗保健计划消费者评估(CAHPS)”中的调查设计。医疗保健计划消费者评估研究。
Med Care. 1999 Mar;37(3 Suppl):MS32-40. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199903001-00004.
8
Implementing and using quality measures for children's health care: perspectives on the state of the practice.实施和使用儿童保健质量指标:实践现状透视
Pediatrics. 2004 Jan;113(1 Pt 2):217-27.
9
Psychometric properties of the CAHPS 1.0 survey measures. Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study.CAHPS 1.0调查指标的心理测量特性。健康计划消费者评估研究。
Med Care. 1999 Mar;37(3 Suppl):MS22-31. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199903001-00003.
10
Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Survey (CAHPS) results for Oklahoma managed care Medicaid, 1997, 1998, and 1999.1997年、1998年和1999年俄克拉荷马州管理式医疗医疗补助计划的消费者健康计划评估调查(CAHPS)结果
J Okla State Med Assoc. 2000 Mar;93(3):109-17.

引用本文的文献

1
Assessment of medicare part d communications to beneficiaries.医疗保险D部分与受益人的沟通评估
Am Health Drug Benefits. 2010 Sep;3(5):310-7.
2
Do patient and practice characteristics confound age-group differences in preferences for general practice care? A quantitative study.患者和医疗实践特征是否会混淆年龄组在全科医疗偏好上的差异?一项定量研究。
BMC Fam Pract. 2013 Jun 25;14:90. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-14-90.
3
The discriminative power of patient experience surveys.患者体验调查的判别力。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2011 Dec 6;11:332. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-332.
4
Do patient experiences on priority aspects of health care predict their global rating of quality of care? A study in five patient groups.患者在医疗保健优先方面的体验是否能预测其对整体医疗质量的评价?五个患者群体的研究。
Health Expect. 2010 Sep;13(3):285-97. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00591.x. Epub 2010 Jun 9.
5
Medical homes: challenges in translating theory into practice.医疗之家:将理论转化为实践面临的挑战。
Med Care. 2009 Jul;47(7):714-22. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181a469b0.
6
The PedsQL 4.0 as a school population health measure: feasibility, reliability, and validity.作为一种学校人群健康测量工具的儿童生活质量量表4.0:可行性、可靠性和有效性。
Qual Life Res. 2006 Mar;15(2):203-15. doi: 10.1007/s11136-005-1388-z.
7
Improving the quality of long-term care with better information.利用更完善的信息提升长期护理质量。
Milbank Q. 2005;83(3):333-64. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00405.x.
8
Psychometric properties of the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) 2.0 adult core survey.消费者健康计划评估研究(CAHPS)2.0成人核心调查问卷的心理测量特性。
Health Serv Res. 2003 Dec;38(6 Pt 1):1509-27. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2003.00190.x.
9
Strengthening research to improve the practice and management of long-term care.加强研究以改善长期护理的实践与管理。
Milbank Q. 2003;81(2):179-220, 171. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.t01-1-00051.
10
Public reporting of hospital patient satisfaction: the Rhode Island experience.医院患者满意度的公开报告:罗德岛的经验
Health Care Financ Rev. 2002 Summer;23(4):51-70.