Vordenberg Sarah E, Hayes Laura, Hermiz Noor, Iong Si In, Kuhlman Katherine, Lammers Megahn, Linton Joshua A, Farris Karen B
J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2020 Nov-Dec;60(6):e252-e263. doi: 10.1016/j.japh.2020.08.026. Epub 2020 Sep 14.
Quality ratings for health plans and health services have become increasingly available to patients.
We sought to explore older adults' understanding of hypothetical community pharmacy report cards and the information they valued on the report card.
We recruited participants aged 50 years or older to complete a 59-question telephone survey. The participants reviewed 3 different pairs of report cards, which represented a hypothetical pharmacy, and each pair contained different quality metrics. The participants identified which pharmacy of the pair they preferred, and this served as the primary outcome. We asked the participants to rate the level of importance (4-point unidirectional scale, not at all to very important) of the star ratings, source of information, and quality metrics. We also gathered information about the participants personal experiences with medications and pharmacy services, their self-reported health, health literacy, health numeracy, and demographics. The frequency that the pharmacy with higher quality metrics was selected was reported. We used logistic regression to examine factors associated with correctly identifying the highest quality pharmacy for all 3 sets of report cards.
Most participants (n = 152) correctly identified all 3 (n = 120, 79.0%) report cards for pharmacies with higher quality metrics. The source of the information, individual quality metrics, and star ratings were all perceived as moderately or very important by most participants. Ratings of importance were strongly correlated (r, 0.70-1.00).
More than 75% were able to correctly identify all 3 report cards with higher quality ratings. Most participants believed that the source of the information, the individual quality metrics, and the star rating were all important. Research is needed to explore to what extent patients would use these types of quality metric report cards to make decisions about where to obtain their medications.
患者越来越容易获得健康计划和健康服务的质量评级。
我们试图探究老年人对假设的社区药房成绩单的理解以及他们在成绩单上重视的信息。
我们招募了50岁及以上的参与者完成一项包含59个问题的电话调查。参与者查看了3组不同的成绩单，这些成绩单代表一家假设的药房，每组包含不同的质量指标。参与者指出他们更喜欢每组中的哪一家药房，这作为主要结果。我们要求参与者对星级评级、信息来源和质量指标的重要程度（4级单向量表，从一点也不重要到非常重要）进行评分。我们还收集了参与者在药物和药房服务方面的个人经历、他们自我报告的健康状况、健康素养、健康算术能力以及人口统计学信息。报告了选择质量指标较高的药房的频率。我们使用逻辑回归分析与正确识别所有3组成绩单中质量最高的药房相关的因素。
大多数参与者（n = 152）正确识别了所有3组（n = 120，79.0%）质量指标较高的药房的成绩单。大多数参与者认为信息来源、各个质量指标和星级评级都具有中等或非常重要的程度。重要性评分之间存在强相关性（r，0.70 - 1.00）。
超过75%的人能够正确识别所有3组质量评级较高的成绩单。大多数参与者认为信息来源、各个质量指标和星级评级都很重要。需要开展研究以探究患者在多大程度上会使用这类质量指标成绩单来决定在哪里获取药物。
