The dimensions of responsiveness of a health system: a Taiwanese perspective

Hsu, Chih‐Cheng; Chen, Likwang; Hu, Yu-Whuei; Yip, Winnie; Shu, Chen-Chun

doi:10.1186/1471-2458-6-72

Cited by 47 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The factor solutions from this study did not confirm the domain structure of 7 domains of previous studies [17]. This study underlines different clustering patterns of responsiveness for out-patients and in-patients in South Africa, in the Brazilian WHYS study [13] and in a study in Taiwan that found five factors (respect, access, confidentiality, basic amenities, and social support) [18]. For example, "autonomy" was in this and the Taiwanese study [18] not conceptualized as a unique domain.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 81%

Patient experiences and health system responsiveness in South Africa

Peltzer

2009

BMC Health Serv Res

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Patients' views are being given more and more importance in policy-making. Understanding populations' perceptions of quality of care is critical to developing measures to increase the utilization of primary health care services. Using the data from the South African World Health Survey (WHS), the current study aims to evaluate the degree of health care service responsiveness (both out-patient and in-patient) and comparing experiences of individuals who used public and private services in South Africa.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 81%

Patient experiences and health system responsiveness in South Africa

Peltzer

2009

BMC Health Serv Res

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Researchers have attempted to account for these differences in studies that have yielded different results [30, 31]. Second, responsiveness evaluations emphasize common and reasonable expectations; however, these are influenced by the characteristics of respondents, such as their age, education level, and income, thus introducing bias in expectations [19, 32]. Also, in our study, we investigated responsiveness of the general population rather than that of patients attending a specific hospital, public health service, or health center, which may have produced different results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Healthcare system responsiveness in Jiangsu Province, China

Chao

Zhu

et al. 2017

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe perceived responsiveness of a healthcare system reflects its ability to satisfy reasonable expectations of the public with respect to non-medical services. Recently, there has been increasing attention paid to responsiveness in evaluating the performance of a healthcare system in a variety of service settings. However, the factors that affect the responsiveness have been inconclusive so far and measures of improved responsiveness have not always thoroughly considered the factors. The aim of this study was to evaluate both the responsiveness of the healthcare system in Jiangsu Province, China, the factors that influence responsiveness and the measures of improved responsiveness considering it, as determined by a responsiveness survey.MethodsA multistage, stratified random sampling method was used to select 1938 adult residents of Jiangsu Province in 2011. Face-to-face interviews were conducted using a self-designed questionnaire modeled on the World Health Organization proposal. The final analysis was based on 1783 (92%) valid questionnaires. Canonical correlation analysis was used to assess the factors that affect responsiveness.ResultsThe average score of all responsiveness-related domains in the surveyed healthcare system was satisfactory (7.50 out of a maximum 10.0). The two highest scoring domains were dignity and confidentiality, and the two lowest scoring domains choice and prompt attention. The factors affecting responsiveness were age, regional economic development level, and geographic area (urban vs. rural). The responsiveness regarding basic amenities was rated worse by the elderly than by younger respondents. Responsiveness ranked better by those with a poorer economic status. Choice in cities was better than in rural regions.ConclusionsThe responsiveness of the Jiangsu healthcare system was considered to be satisfactory but could be improved by offering greater choice and providing more prompt attention. Perceptions of healthcare system responsiveness differ with age, regional economic development level, and geographic area (urban vs. rural). Measures to increase the perceived level of responsiveness include better service at higher level hospitals, shorter waiting time, more hospitals in rural regions, an improved medical environment, and provision of infrastructures that makes the medical environments more comfortable.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-1980-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…Although the results of the WHO survey on 191 countries demonstrated that responsiveness levels are generally higher in countries with higher individual health expenditures, several countries with health expenditures that are two or three times those of others obtained similar responsiveness [12]. An investigation in Taiwan likewise showed that various people concerned in the health system should be assessed during responsiveness comparisons, as this may present different weighted coefficients of responsiveness due to the diverse national cultures [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Responsiveness of Community Health Services in Urban China: A Quantitative Study in Wuhan City

Luo

Wang

et al. 2013

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWith the objective of the national health services systems reform to move care to the community, community health services (CHS) are becoming the gateways of the health system in China. This study aims to evaluate the levels and distributions of the responsiveness of CHS in urban China and identify the relevant features to provide the government with policy advice on the improvement of CHS responsiveness.MethodsA total of 872 face-to-face interviews were conducted in community health centers (CHCs) from 2007 to 2009. Indicators of responsiveness that were recommended by the World Health Organization were adopted, and non-conditional logistic regression analysis was performed to explore the factors associated with the levels and distributions of the responsiveness of CHS.ResultsThe responsiveness scored at a fairly ‘good’ level of 7.45, 7.45, and 7.46 for CHS in years 2007, 2008, and 2009, respectively. The representative responsiveness inequality indexes were 0.097, 0.101, and 0.109, respectively, indicating the moderately balanced distributions of responsiveness in these three years. During this period, the scores of responsiveness elements were highest at 7.44 to 8.34 in “dignity”, “communication”, and “social support”, while lowest at 6.76 to 7.54 in “autonomy”, “confidentiality”, and “basic amenities”. The results of the logistic regression analysis suggested that five elements (OR value), namely, “dignity” (1.414–3.345), “communication” (1.218–3.655), “basic amenities” (1.251–2.362), “prompt attention” (1.098–1.590), and “autonomy” (1.416–2.173), had significant associations with CHS responsiveness.ConclusionsThe responsiveness of CHS in Wuhan City was fairly good but still requires further improvement, particularly on the working conditions of CHCs and communication skills trainings among CHS workers.

show abstract

The dimensions of responsiveness of a health system: a Taiwanese perspective

Cited by 47 publications

References 12 publications

Patient experiences and health system responsiveness in South Africa

Patient experiences and health system responsiveness in South Africa

Healthcare system responsiveness in Jiangsu Province, China

Evaluation of Responsiveness of Community Health Services in Urban China: A Quantitative Study in Wuhan City

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About