Potential of geographical variation analysis for realigning providers to value-based care. ECHO case study on lower-value indications of C-section in five European countries

European Journal of Public Health

Volumn 25, Issue , 2015, Pages 44-51

  García Armesto, Sandra ^a,b,c,e   Angulo Pueyo, Ester ^a,c,e   Martinez Lizaga N ^e   Mateus, C ^h   Joaquim, I ^h   Bernal Delgado, E ^e   Seral, M ^e   Estupinan F ^e   Comendeiro, M ^e   Ridao, M ^e   Baixauli C ^e   Librero, J ^e   Christiansen, T ^f   Thygesen, L C ^f   Bloor, K ^g   Cookson, R ^g   Gutacker, N ^g   Nunes, C ^h   Yabek A M ⁱ   Galsworthy, M ⁱ   Albreht, T ⁱ   Munck, J ^j   Guntert B ^j   Bremner, J ^k   Giepmans, P ^k   Dix, O ^k   more..

^a INSTITUTO ARAGONÉS DE CIENCIAS DE LA SALUD   (Spain)

^b FUNDACIÓN ARAID   (Spain)

^c Red de Investigación en Servicios Sanitarios en Enfermedades Crónicas REDISSEC   (Spain)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LISBON   (Portugal)

^e IACS   (India)

^f UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

^g UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^h UNIVERSIDADE NOVA DE LISBOA   (Portugal)

ⁱ NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (Slovenia)

^j Department for Biomedical Computer Science and Mechatronics   (India)

^k EHMA   (Belgium)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; ECONOMICS; EUROPE; FEMALE; GEOGRAPHY; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; PREGNANCY; SOCIOECONOMICS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UTILIZATION;

ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; EUROPE; FEMALE; GEOGRAPHY; HEALTH EXPENDITURES; HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY; HEALTH SERVICES MISUSE; HUMANS; PREGNANCY; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; RESIDENCE CHARACTERISTICS; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS;

EID: 84929050384     PISSN: 11011262     EISSN: 1464360X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/cku224     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Thomson S, Figueras J, Evetovits T, et al. Economic Crisis, Health Systems and Health in Europe: Impact and Implications for Policy. Policy Summary 12. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe and European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, 2014. Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/en/aboutus/partners/observatory/policy-briefs-and-summaries/economic-crisis,-healthsystems-and-health-in-europe-impact-and-implications-for-policy (2 January 2015, date last accessed).
2. Garcia-Armesto S, Campillo-Artero C, Bernal-Delgado E. Disinvestment in the age of cost-cutting sound and fury. Tools for the Spanish national health system. Health Policy 2013;110:180-85.
3. Elshaug AG, Moss JR, Littlejohns P, et al. Identifying existing health care services that do not provide value for money. Med J Aust 2009;190:269-73.
4. Elshaug AG, Hiller JE, Tunis SR, Moss JR. Challenges in Australian policy processes for disinvestment from existing, ineffective health care practices. Aust New Zealand Health Policy 2007;4:23.
5. Elshaug AG, Watt AM, Moss JR, Hiller JE. Policy Perspectives on the Obsolescence of Health Technologies in Canada [HTS Policy Forum Discussion Paper]. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), 2009. Available at: http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/Obsolescence%20of%20Health%20Technologies%20in%20Canada-Policy-Forum-e.pdf (2 January 2015, date last accessed).
6. Bohmer P, Pain C, Watt A, et al. Maximising health gain within available resources in the New Zealand public health system. Health Policy 2001;55:37-50.
7. Audit Commission. Reducing Spending on Low Clinical Value TreatmentsHealth Briefing. London: Audit Commission, 2011. Available at: http://www.rightcare.nhs. uk/index.php/2011/04/audit-commission-health-briefing-reducing-spending-onlow-clinical-value-treatments/(2 January 2015, date last accessed).
8. NHS Rightcare Commissioning for Value. Available at: http://www.rightcare.nhs. uk/index.php/commissioning-for-value/(2 January 2015, date last accessed).
9. ECHO Consortium Lower-Value Care Atlas Reports. Available at: http://www.echohealth. eu/(2 January 2015, date last accessed).
10. Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, et al. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007;21:98-113.
11. Althabe F, Sosa C, Belizán JM, et al. Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium-, and high-income countries: an ecological study. Birth 2006;33:270-77.
12. Belizán JM, Althabe F, Cafferata ML. Health consequences of the increasing caesarean section rates. Epidemiology 2007;18:485-86.
13. Baicker K, Buckles KS, Chandra A. Geographic variation in the appropriate use of cesarean delivery. Health Aff 2006;25:w355-67.
14. Librero J, Peiró S, Belda A, Calabuig J. C-section rate in low-risk women: a useful indicator to compare hospitals attending deliveries with different risks. Rev Esp Salud Pública 2014;88:315-26.
15. Lauer JA, Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Wojdyla D. Determinants of Caesarean Section Rates in Developed Countries: Supply, Demand and Opportunities for Control. World Health Report, 2010. Background Paper, 29. Geneva: World Heath Organization, 2010. Available at http://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/financing/healthreport/29DeterminantsC-section.pdf (2 January 2015, date last accessed).
16. Gibbons L, Belizán JM, Lauer JA, et al. The Global Numbers and Costs of Additionally Needed and Unnecessary Caesarean Sections Performed Per Year: Overuse as a Barrier to Universal Coverage. World Health Report, 2010. Background Paper, 30. Geneva: World Heath Organization, 2010. Available at http://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/financing/healthreport/30C-sectioncosts. pdf (2 January 2015, date last accessed).
17. OECD. Caesarean sections. In: Health at a Glance 2011, OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing, 2011. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/health-glance-2011-37-en (2 January 2015, date last accessed).
18. European Collaboration for Healthcare Optimization (ECHO) www.echo-health.eu. Zaragoza (Spain): Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud-Instituto Investigación Sanitaria Aragó n; c2011. ECHO Consortium. Handbook on Methodology: ECHO Indicators, 2014 Apr 27. Available at: http://www.echo-health.eu/handbook/getting-indicators.html (15 October 2014, date last accessed).
19. Ibáñez B, Librero J, Bernal-Delgado E, et al. Is there much variation in variation? Revisiting statistics of small area variation in health services research. BMC Health Serv Res 2009;9:60.
20. European Collaboration for Healthcare Optimization (ECHO) www.echo-health.eu.Zaragoza (Spain): Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud-Instituto Investigación Sanitaria Aragó n; c2011. In: Bernal-Delgado E, Thygesen LC, Martínez-Lizaga N, Comendeiro M, editors. On Behalf of the ECHO Consortium. Handbook on Methodology: Measurement of the Variation, 2014 Apr 27. Available at: http://www.echo-health.eu/handbook/measuring-variation.html (15 October 2014, date last accessed).
21. Kozhimannil KB, Hung P, Prasad S, et al. Rural-urban differences in obstetric care, 2002-2010, and implications for the future. Med Care 2014;52:4-9.