Journal of Health Services Research & Policy

Objectives: To illustrate the complexity of setting up evaluative research when it is perceived to threaten professional and financial interests.

Methods: A case study based on participatory observation of attempts to study the delivery and health consequences of in vitro fertilization (IVF). Two research projects were observed: one used well-baby clinic records and this project was completed; the other project aimed to use national data and record linkage to study the patterns of use of IVF, the IVF success rate, and the health effects on women and on children. This project could not be carried out as planned. The reasons for this were studied. Observations, documents and notes on discussions were analysed.

Results: IVF clinicians were not interested in the second project until faced with a concrete request to provide data. Tactics to avoid providing data included asking for more information on the project, transferring the request from one person to another, and arguing against the project. The arguments used and conditions set by different clinics were similar and centred around data confidentiality and authorship of the anticipated research reports. This case illustrated features that occur when health care is evaluated by non-clinicians: quarrels over mandate and ownership; and conflicts between the different research traditions of clinicians and epidemiologists.

Conclusions: To facilitate evaluation by outsiders, new norms are needed and outside researchers need institutional back-up. Outside evaluation may need a determined push from health care funders and a cultural change within the clinical community itself.

Objectives: To explore why public health physicians seldom use research-based information and to develop an intervention to remedy this on the basis of this study, other research literature and suitable theories of information-seeking and professional behaviour change.

Methods: A qualitative study was conducted using focus groups, observation of individuals and interviews. The setting was Norwegian public health practice; 52 public health physicians from all over Norway participated in the study.

Results: We identified several barriers to the use of scientific literature that could be categorised as: psychological variables; environmental variables; and source characteristics. We developed an intervention that attempts to address these barriers, informed by previous research on the effectiveness of interventions to change professional practice and incorporating elements from social cognitive theories and the theory of innovation diffusion.

Conclusions: The Norwegian public health physician works in an isolated environment which does not facilitate searching or obtaining scientific information, which does not ask for this information and far less encourages its use as a basis for decision-making. An intervention tailored to reduce some of the barriers to research use may lead to more frequent and extensive use of such information in public health decision-making.

Objectives: To assess the impact on the outcome of total hip replacement of the length of timing spent waiting for surgery.

Methods: One hundred and forty-three orthopaedic and general hospitals provided information about aspects of surgical practice for each total hip replacement conducted between September 1996 and October 1997 for publicly and privately funded operations in five English health regions. These data were linked to patient information about hip-related pain and disability status (measured using the Oxford Hip Score) before operation and at 3 and 12 months after. Data were analysed using multiple regression analysis.

Results: Questionnaires were completed by surgeons for 10 410 (78%) patients treated during the recruitment period and by 7151 (54%) patients. Twelve months after total hip replacement, the majority of patients experienced substantial improvements in hip-related pain and disability (as measured by the Oxford Hip Score). Those patients who started with a worse Oxford Hip Score before the operation tended to remain worse after the operation. Worse pre-operative score was associated with an increased length of either outpatient or inpatient wait, and this trend remained after the operation. The relationship between waiting time and outcome remained after adjustment for possible confounding variables. A consistently worse score was observed in public compared with private patients at all three time-points. In addition, in both sectors, those patients who were socially disadvantaged had a worse score than more socially advantaged patients both before and after the operation.

Conclusions: Waiting for surgery is associated with worse outcomes 12 months later. Longer-term outcome needs to be considered to see if this association persists.

Objectives: To compare job satisfaction and stress levels of general practitioners (GPs) employed on salaried contracts with GPs on a 'standard' performance-related contract paid by fee-for-service and capitation.

Methods: Job satisfaction and stress levels were assessed using data from two postal surveys of GPs: a national survey of 'standard' contract GPs carried out in 1998; and a survey of salaried GPs and their non-salaried GP employers in 1999. Differences in satisfaction and stress scores were assessed by t-tests; regression analysis was used to control for confounding factors and possible selection bias.

Results: We achieved a response rate of 77% in the 1999 survey of salaried and non-salaried GPs; 48% of 'standard' contract GPs responded in the 1998 survey. We found that salaried GPs were as satisfied overall as both non-salaried GP employers and GPs on the 'standard' contract, even after controlling for confounding factors and selection bias. Salaried GPs were more satisfied with their remuneration, working hours and the recognition they got for their work. They experienced more stress with two factors but less stress with 19 factors compared with the 'standard' contract GPs.

Conclusions: Overall job satisfaction levels among salaried doctors were similar to those of doctors on contracts paid by mixed fee-for-service and capitation. Future studies of job satisfaction levels under different doctor payment systems need to take account of the extent to which doctors have preferences for different types of contract if they are to derive unbiased results.

Objective: To understand the processes that constrain the capacity of statutory organisations to work effectively with lay communities and to develop a model to enhance their capacity to do so.

Methods: The research consisted of three elements: a review of relevant literature; in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of people who had recently been involved in community-statutory sector partnership; and a deliberative workshop involving ten expert witnesses, selected to reflect a range of sectors and levels within organisations.

Results: Many factors contribute to a lack of effective strategic partnerships between lay communities and statutory organisations. These factors fall into five domains: the community's capacity to engage; the skills and competencies of organisational staff; the dominant professional service culture; the overall organisational ethos and culture; and the dynamics of the local and national political systems. A model of the relationships and/or interaction between these domains is postulated. There is potential for testing this model with statutory organisations to see whether it concurs with their reality and whether it is enhancing their organisational capacity.

Conclusions: Commonly occurring constraints to effective partnerships between statutory organisations and lay communities need to be identified and addressed by applying a dynamic model of the type presented here.

There are many parallels between the UK's new primary care commissioning organizations and the managed care organizations and integrated delivery systems that have evolved in the USA over the last three decades. Those building primary care groups and trusts (PCG/Ts) can learn from the American experience with health maintenance organizations and other similar entities. These lessons should also be relevant to those in other countries interested in establishing innovative primary care led organizations within the broader structure of a socialized health care system. Following an overview of US managed care and an update of the progress of the UK's PCG/Ts, we go on to suggest how new consortia of PCG/Ts might be developed and how budgets and provider incentives could be structured. This international comparison suggests that the resources needed to support the development of effective PCG/Ts will be considerable, as will the need to maintain organizational flexibility. If primary care organizations are to thrive, it will be essential to develop truly integrated budgets for primary and secondary care.

Objective: Heterogeneity between study results can be a problem in any systematic review or meta-analysis of clinical trials. Identifying its presence, investigating its cause and correctly accounting for it in analyses all involve difficult decisions for the researcher. Our objectives were: to collate recommendations on the subject of dealing with heterogeneity in systematic reviews of clinical trials; to investigate current practice in addressing heterogeneity in Cochrane reviews; and to compare current practice with recommendations.

Methods: We review guidelines for those undertaking systematic reviews and examine how heterogeneity is addressed in practice in a sample of systematic reviews, and their protocols, from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Results: Advice to reviewers is on the whole consistent and sensible. However, examination of a sample of Cochrane protocols and reviews demonstrates that the advice is difficult to follow given the small numbers of studies identified in many systematic reviews, the difficulty of pre-specifying important effect modifiers for subgroup analysis or meta-regression and the unresolved debate concerning fixed versus random effects metaanalyses. There was disagreement between protocols and reviews, often either regarding choice of important potential effect modifiers or due to the review identifying too few studies to perform planned analyses.

Conclusion: Guidelines that address practical issues are required to reduce the risk of spurious findings from investigations of heterogeneity. This may involve discouraging statistical investigations such as subgroup analyses and meta-regression, rather than simply adopting a cautious approach to their interpretation, unless a large number of studies is available. The notion of a priori specification of potential effect modifiers for a retrospective review of studies is ill-defined, and the appropriateness of using a statistical test for heterogeneity to decide between analysis strategies is suspect.

The British National Health Service and other publicly funded health systems operate on the principle that health care should be provided solely on the basis of need. Yet the literature abounds with reports of bias in health care use. In order to defend such a charge, two conditions must be met. The first condition is that treatment decisions must be shown to be unfair in that they are not made solely on the basis of need. This paper demonstrates the importance of considering the fair distribution of health care from two, related, perspectives. The first is that people with equal needs should be treated the same (equal use for equal need). This is referred to as the achievement of horizontal equity. The alternative perspective is that people with greater needs should have more treatment than those with lesser needs (unequal use for unequal need). This is referred to as the achievement of vertical equity. Although these perspectives are logically linked, demonstration of equal use for equal need does not necessarily indicate unequal use for unequal need. This is because it cannot be assumed that equal use occurs at every level of need. The second condition that must be met is that clinical judgement must be shown to be influenced by prejudicial notions about patients. Such research is fraught with methodological difficulties, and the charge of biased clinical decision-making is usually made as a result of a process of exclusion. Methods that could be used to examine the extent to which inequalities in health care use are due to bias are described.