| Title |
Comparing VA and Non-VA Quality of Care: A Systematic Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-016-3775-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claire O’Hanlon, Christina Huang, Elizabeth Sloss, Rebecca Anhang Price, Peter Hussey, Carrie Farmer, Courtney Gidengil |
| Abstract |
The Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system aims to provide high-quality medical care to veterans in the USA, but the quality of VA care has recently drawn the concern of Congress. The objective of this study was to systematically review published evidence examining the quality of care provided at VA health care facilities compared to quality of care in other facilities and systems. Building on the search strategy and results of a prior systematic review, we searched MEDLINE (from January 1, 2005, to January 1, 2015) to identify relevant articles on the quality of care at VA facilities compared to non-VA facilities. Articles from the prior systematic review published from 2005 and onward were also included and re-abstracted. Studies were classified, analyzed, and summarized by the Institute of Medicine's quality dimensions. Sixty-nine articles were identified (including 31 articles from the prior systematic review and 38 new articles) that address one or more Institute of Medicine quality dimensions: safety (34 articles), effectiveness (24 articles), efficiency (9 articles), patient-centeredness (5 articles), equity (4 articles), and timeliness (1 article). Studies of safety and effectiveness indicated generally better or equal performance, with some exceptions. Too few articles related to timeliness, equity, efficiency, and patient-centeredness were found from which to reliably draw conclusions about VA care related to these dimensions. The VA often (but not always) performs better than or similarly to other systems of care with regard to the safety and effectiveness of care. Additional studies of quality of care in the VA are needed on all aspects of quality, but particularly with regard to timeliness, equity, efficiency, and patient-centeredness. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 82 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 33 | 40% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 4% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 1% |
| Greece | 1 | 1% |
| Sri Lanka | 1 | 1% |
| North Macedonia | 1 | 1% |
| Austria | 1 | 1% |
| Finland | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 39 | 48% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 64 | 78% |
| Scientists | 10 | 12% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 102 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 16% |
| Researcher | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 18% |
| Unknown | 34 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 12% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 13% |
| Unknown | 37 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 515. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 February 2024.
All research outputs
#49,918
of 25,610,986 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#47
of 8,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,017
of 372,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,610,986 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,228 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 372,969 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.