19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A short list of high-priority indicators of health system responsiveness for aging: an eDelphi consensus study Translated title: Una lista breve de indicadores de alta prioridad relativos a la capacidad de respuesta del sistema de salud frente al envejecimiento: un estudio de consenso con el uso de eDelphi Translated title: Uma breve lista de indicadores de alta prioridade da capacidade de resposta de sistemas de saúde para o envelhecimento: um estudo de consenso eDelphi

      case-report

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          ABSTRACT

          The objective of this article was to provide a consensus-based short list of effective indicators to measure health system responsiveness to the needs of older adults which would be relevant to informing public policy. An e-Delphi study was done with no direct interaction between respondents. Virtual surveys were sent to 141 participants with experience in analysis and monitoring of health indicators, management of health systems, and health care of older adults. A baseline list of 24 previously published indicators was used. The criteria for selection as high priority indicators were: usefulness as a tracer of health system responsiveness and usefulness to inform policy. Consensus was defined as: ≥70% agreement among the participants that the indicator was very high or high priority; plus being benchmarked by ≥50% of respondents as having a higher relative weight than other indicators; plus being in the top 10 in the ranking list. The first round of the process included 38 participants with varied professional backgrounds. Consensus was reached for seven indicators after two rounds. Five indicators were related to distal outcomes (mortality, disability, or healthy life expectancy), one to monitoring functional assessments, and one to poverty levels. Health systems professionals should consider these comprehensive priority indicators in their efforts to provide a better health system for older people.

          RESUMEN

          El objetivo de este artículo es proporcionar una lista breve y consensuada de indicadores eficaces para medir la capacidad de respuesta del sistema de salud al atender las necesidades de las personas mayores que sean pertinentes para fundamentar las políticas públicas. Se realizó un estudio con el uso de eDelphi (el software para el método de Delfos), sin interacción directa entre las personas encuestadas. Se enviaron encuestas virtuales a 141 participantes con experiencia en el análisis y el seguimiento de indicadores de salud, la gestión de sistemas de salud y la atención de salud de las personas mayores. Se utilizó una lista de referencia de 24 indicadores publicada con anterioridad. Los criterios para seleccionar los indicadores de alta prioridad fueron: utilidad como elemento de medición de la capacidad de respuesta de los sistemas de salud y utilidad para fundamentar las políticas. El consenso se definió como lo siguiente: un acuerdo ≥70% entre los participantes de que el indicador era de prioridad muy alta o alta; que ≥50% de los encuestados consideraran que tenía un mayor peso relativo que otros indicadores; y que estuviera entre los diez primeros lugares de la lista. En la primera ronda del proceso intervinieron 38 participantes con distintas competencias profesionales. Después de dos rondas, se llegó a un consenso respecto a siete indicadores. Cinco indicadores estaban relacionados con resultados a largo plazo (mortalidad, discapacidad o esperanza de vida sana), uno con el seguimiento de evaluaciones funcionales y uno con los niveles de pobreza. Los profesionales de los sistemas de salud deberían tener en cuenta estos indicadores prioritarios integrales al adoptar medidas tendientes a proporcionar un mejor sistema de salud para las personas mayores.

          RESUMO

          Este artigo tem como objetivo fornecer uma breve lista consensual de indicadores efetivos para medir a capacidade de resposta de sistemas de saúde às necessidades das pessoas idosas, relevante para informar políticas públicas. Foi realizado um estudo eDelphi sem interação direta entre os entrevistados. Questionários virtuais foram enviados a 141 participantes com experiência em análise e monitoramento de indicadores de saúde, gestão de sistemas de saúde e atenção à saúde de pessoas idosas, tendo como base uma lista de 24 indicadores publicados anteriormente. Os critérios para seleção como indicadores de alta prioridade foram sua utilidade como marcador da capacidade de resposta do sistema de saúde e utilidade para informar políticas públicas. O consenso foi definido como: ≥70% de concordância entre os participantes de que o indicador tinha prioridade muito alta ou alta; avaliação por ≥50% dos entrevistados de que tinha um peso relativo maior do que outros indicadores; e posicionamento entre os 10 primeiros na lista de classificação. A primeira rodada do processo incluiu 38 participantes com diversos perfis profissionais. Após duas rodadas, chegou-se a um consenso sobre sete indicadores. Cinco estavam relacionados a resultados distais (mortalidade, incapacidade ou expectativa de vida saudável), um ao monitoramento de avaliações funcionais e o último aos níveis de pobreza. Os profissionais de sistemas de saúde devem considerar esses indicadores prioritários abrangentes em seus esforços para oferecer um sistema de saúde melhor para as pessoas idosas.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of Consensus

          The Delphi technique is a widely used and accepted method for gathering data from respondents within their domain of expertise. The technique is designed as a group communication process which aims to achieve a convergence of opinion on a specific real-world issue. The Delphi process has been used in various fields of study such as program planning, needs assessment, policy determination, and resource utilization to develop a full range of alternatives, explore or expose underlying assumptions, as well as correlate judgments on a topic spanning a wide range of disciplines. The Delphi technique is well suited as a method for consensus-building by using a series of questionnaires delivered using multiple iterations to collect data from a panel of selected subjects. Subject selection, time frames for conducting and completing a study, the possibility of low response rates, and unintentionally guiding feedback from the respondent group are areas which should be considered when designing and implementing a Delphi study. Accessed 68,465 times on https://pareonline.net from August 30, 2007 to December 31, 2019. For downloads from January 1, 2020 forward, please click on the PlumX Metrics link to the right.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Using and Reporting the Delphi Method for Selecting Healthcare Quality Indicators: A Systematic Review

            Objective Delphi technique is a structured process commonly used to developed healthcare quality indicators, but there is a little recommendation for researchers who wish to use it. This study aimed 1) to describe reporting of the Delphi method to develop quality indicators, 2) to discuss specific methodological skills for quality indicators selection 3) to give guidance about this practice. Methodology and Main Finding Three electronic data bases were searched over a 30 years period (1978–2009). All articles that used the Delphi method to select quality indicators were identified. A standardized data extraction form was developed. Four domains (questionnaire preparation, expert panel, progress of the survey and Delphi results) were assessed. Of 80 included studies, quality of reporting varied significantly between items (9% for year's number of experience of the experts to 98% for the type of Delphi used). Reporting of methodological aspects needed to evaluate the reliability of the survey was insufficient: only 39% (31/80) of studies reported response rates for all rounds, 60% (48/80) that feedback was given between rounds, 77% (62/80) the method used to achieve consensus and 57% (48/80) listed quality indicators selected at the end of the survey. A modified Delphi procedure was used in 49/78 (63%) with a physical meeting of the panel members, usually between Delphi rounds. Median number of panel members was 17(Q1:11; Q3:31). In 40/70 (57%) studies, the panel included multiple stakeholders, who were healthcare professionals in 95% (38/40) of cases. Among 75 studies describing criteria to select quality indicators, 28 (37%) used validity and 17(23%) feasibility. Conclusion The use and reporting of the Delphi method for quality indicators selection need to be improved. We provide some guidance to the investigators to improve the using and reporting of the method in future surveys.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Mortality due to low-quality health systems in the universal health coverage era: a systematic analysis of amenable deaths in 137 countries

              Summary Background Universal health coverage has been proposed as a strategy to improve health in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, this is contingent on the provision of good-quality health care. We estimate the excess mortality for conditions targeted in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) that are amenable to health care and the portion of this excess mortality due to poor-quality care in 137 LMICs, in which excess mortality refers to deaths that could have been averted in settings with strong health systems. Methods Using data from the 2016 Global Burden of Disease study, we calculated mortality amenable to personal health care for 61 SDG conditions by comparing case fatality between each LMIC with corresponding numbers from 23 high-income reference countries with strong health systems. We used data on health-care utilisation from population surveys to separately estimate the portion of amenable mortality attributable to non-utilisation of health care versus that attributable to receipt of poor-quality care. Findings 15·6 million excess deaths from 61 conditions occurred in LMICs in 2016. After excluding deaths that could be prevented through public health measures, 8·6 million excess deaths were amenable to health care of which 5·0 million were estimated to be due to receipt of poor-quality care and 3·6 million were due to non-utilisation of health care. Poor quality of health care was a major driver of excess mortality across conditions, from cardiovascular disease and injuries to neonatal and communicable disorders. Interpretation Universal health coverage for SDG conditions could avert 8·6 million deaths per year but only if expansion of service coverage is accompanied by investments into high-quality health systems. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Rev Panam Salud Publica
                Rev Panam Salud Publica
                rpsp
                Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública
                Organización Panamericana de la Salud
                1020-4989
                1680-5348
                02 August 2023
                2023
                : 47
                : e103
                Affiliations
                [1 ] orgnameGerontopole orgdiv1Toulouse University Hospital Toulouse France originalGerontopole, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
                [2 ] orgnameHealth Systems and Services orgdiv1Pan American Health Organization Washington, D.C. United States of America originalHealth Systems and Services, Pan American Health Organization, Washington, D.C., United States of America.
                [3 ] orgnameIndependent researcher Mexico originalIndependent researcher, Mexico.
                Author notes
                Emmanuel Gonzalez-Bautista, emmanuel.scout@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                RPSP.2023.103
                10.26633/RPSP.2023.103
                10392236
                a0d7caf2-845a-4c23-bac9-9324a600b18e

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 IGO License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. No modifications or commercial use of this article are permitted. In any reproduction of this article there should not be any suggestion that PAHO or this article endorse any specific organization or products. The use of the PAHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article’s original URL. Open access logo and text by PLoS, under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

                History
                : 25 March 2023
                : 06 April 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 2, Equations: 0, References: 20
                Categories
                Special Report

                health systems,health services surveillance,health of the elderly,delphi techniques,sistemas de salud,vigilancia sanitaria de servicios de salud,salud del anciano,técnica delfos,sistemas de saúde,vigilância de serviços de saúde,saúde do idoso

                Comments

                Comment on this article