Use of outcome data by purchasers and consumers: New strategies and new dilemmas

International Journal for Quality in Health Care

Volumn 10, Issue 6, 1998, Pages 503-508

  Hibbard, Judith H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

Author keywords

Consumer decision making; Consumer information

Indexed keywords

CONSUMER; DATA ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH SERVICE; HOSPITAL PURCHASING; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SATISFACTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

BENCHMARKING; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; INFORMATION SERVICES; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); UNITED STATES;

EID: 0032414746     PISSN: 13534505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/10.6.503     Document Type: Review

References (13)

1. Freeborn DK, Greenlick MR. Evaluation of the performance of ambulatory care systems: research requirements and opportunities. Med Care 1973; Supplement: 68-75.
2. Hibbard JH, Jewett JJ, Legnini MW et al. Choosing a health plan: do large employers use the data? Health Affairs 1997; 16: 172-180.
3. FACCT (The Foundation for Accountability). Meeting the Health Care Information Needs of Federal Employees & Retirees: An Evaluation of a Framework for Communication. Portland, OR: Foundation for Accountability, 1998.
4. Hibbard JH, Sofaer S, Jewett JJ. Condition specific performance information: assessing salience, comprehension and approaches for communication quality. Health Care Financ Rev 1996; 18: 95-109.
5. Hibbard JH, Jewett JJ. Will quality report cards help consumers? Health Affairs 1997; 16: 218-228.
6. Slovic P. Toward understanding and improving decisions. In Howell WC, Fleishman EA, eds. Human Performance and Productivity. Volume 2: Information Processing and Decision Making. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1982: pp. 157-183.
7. Tversky A, Sattath S, Slovic P. Contingent weighting in judgement and choice. Psychol Rev 1988; 95: 371-384.
8. Montgomery H, Svenson O. A think-aloud study of dominance structuring in decision processes. In Montgomery H, Svenson O, eds, Process and Structure in Human Decision Making. Chichester, NY: Wiley, 1989: pp. 135-150.
9. Hsee C. The evaluability hypothesis: an explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organ Behav Hum Decis Proc 1996; 67: 247-257.
10. Mellers BA, Richards V, Birnbaum M. Distributional theories of impression formation. Organ Behav Hum Decis Proc 1992; 51: 313-343.
11. Russo JE, Kreiser G, Miyashita S. An effective display of unit price information. J Marketing 1975; 39: 11-19.
12. Slovic P. The construction of preference. Am Psychol 1995; 50: 364-371.
13. Archer D. What you should know about what consumers need to know before they know what they want to know about HMOs. Presented at Value and Choice: Providing Consumers with Information on the Quality of Health Care. Conference sponsored by AHCPR and Kaiser Family Foundation. Medicare Rights Center, New York, NY.