Department of Psychology, Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Seville, Spain.
Scientific Association PSICOST, Seville, Spain.
Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2022 Aug 22;31:e59. doi: 10.1017/S2045796022000403.
Health services research (HSR) is affected by a widespread problem related to service terminology including non-commensurability (using different units of analysis for comparisons) and terminological unclarity due to ambiguity and vagueness of terms. The aim of this study was to identify the magnitude of the terminological bias in health and social services research and health economics by applying an international classification system.
This study, that was part of the PECUNIA project, followed an ontoterminology approach (disambiguation of technical and scientific terms using a taxonomy and a glossary of terms). A listing of 56 types of health and social services relevant for mental health was compiled from a systematic review of the literature and feedback provided by 29 experts in six European countries. The disambiguation of terms was performed using an ontology-based classification of services (Description and Evaluation of Services and DirectoriEs - DESDE), and its glossary of terms. The analysis focused on the commensurability and the clarity of definitions according to the reference classification system. Interrater reliability was analysed using .
The disambiguation revealed that only 13 terms (23%) of the 56 services selected were accurate. Six terms (11%) were confusing as they did not correspond to services as defined in the reference classification system (non-commensurability bias), 27 (48%) did not include a clear definition of the target population for which the service was intended, and the definition of types of services was unclear in 59% of the terms: 15 were ambiguous and 11 vague. The analyses were significant for agreements in unit of analysis and assignment of DESDE codes and very high in definition of target population.
Service terminology is a source of systematic bias in health service research, and certainly in mental healthcare. The magnitude of the problem is substantial. This finding has major implications for the international comparability of resource use in health economics, quality and equality research. The approach presented in this paper contributes to minimise differentiation between services by taking into account key features such as target population, care setting, main activities and type and number of professionals among others. This approach also contributes to support financial incentives for effective health promotion and disease prevention. A detailed analysis of services in terms of cost measurement for economic evaluations reveals the necessity and usefulness of defining services using a coding system and taxonomical criteria rather than by 'text-based descriptions'.
健康服务研究(HSR)受到与服务术语相关的普遍问题的影响,包括非可衡量性(使用不同的分析单位进行比较)以及由于术语的歧义性和模糊性导致的术语不明确。本研究的目的是通过应用国际分类系统来确定健康和社会服务研究以及健康经济学中术语偏见的程度。
这项研究是 PECUNIA 项目的一部分,遵循本体论术语学方法(使用分类法和术语表对技术和科学术语进行消歧)。从文献系统综述和六个欧洲国家的 29 名专家提供的反馈中,编制了一份与心理健康相关的 56 种健康和社会服务类型的清单。使用基于本体的服务分类(服务描述和评估以及目录 DESDE)及其术语表对术语进行消歧。该分析主要关注根据参考分类系统的可衡量性和定义清晰度。使用. 分析了评分者间的可靠性。
消歧结果显示,在所选择的 56 种服务中,只有 13 种术语(23%)是准确的。6 个术语(11%)具有混淆性,因为它们与参考分类系统中定义的服务不对应(不可衡量性偏差),27 个术语(48%)未明确界定服务针对的目标人群,59%的术语中服务类型的定义不明确:15 个术语模糊,11 个术语模糊。在分析单位的一致性和 DESDE 代码的分配方面,分析结果具有统计学意义,在目标人群的定义方面,分析结果具有非常高的一致性。
服务术语是健康服务研究中(当然也是精神保健领域中)系统偏差的一个来源。问题的严重程度相当大。这一发现对健康经济学、质量和公平性研究中资源使用的国际可比性具有重大影响。本文提出的方法通过考虑目标人群、护理环境、主要活动以及专业人员的类型和数量等关键特征,有助于减少服务之间的差异。这种方法还有助于支持有效的健康促进和疾病预防的经济激励措施。从经济评估的成本测量角度对服务进行详细分析,揭示了使用编码系统和分类标准而不是基于“文本描述”来定义服务的必要性和有用性。