Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Jan 15:5:2.
doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-2.

Overview of a formal scoping review on health system report cards

Affiliations

Overview of a formal scoping review on health system report cards

Susan E Brien et al. Implement Sci. .

Abstract

Background: There is an extensive body of literature on health system quality reporting that has yet to be characterized. Scoping is a novel methodology for systematically assessing the breadth of a body of literature in a particular research area. Our objectives were to showcase the scoping review methodology in the review of health system quality reporting, and to report on the extent of the literature in this area.

Methods: A scoping review was performed based on the York methodology outlined by Arksey and O'Malley from the University of York, United Kingdom. We searched 14 peer reviewed and grey literature databases limiting the search to English language and non-English language articles with English abstracts published between 1980 and June 2006 with an update to November 2008. We also searched specific websites, reference lists, and key journals for relevant material and solicited input from key stakeholders. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied to select relevant material and qualitative information was charted from the selected literature.

Results: A total of 10,102 articles were identified from searching the literature databases, 821 were deemed relevant to our scoping review. An additional 401 were identified from updates, website searching, references lists, key journals, and stakeholder suggestions for a total of 1,222 included articles. These were categorized and catalogued according to the inclusion criteria, and further subcategories were identified through the charting process. Topic areas represented by this review included the effectiveness of health system report cards (n = 194 articles), methodological issues in their development (n = 815 articles), stakeholder views on report cards (n = 144 articles), and ethical considerations around their development (n = 69 articles).

Conclusions: The scoping review methodology has permitted us to characterize and catalogue the extensive body of literature pertaining to health system report cards. The resulting literature repository that our review has created can be of use to researchers and health system stakeholders interested in the topic of health system quality measurement and reporting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of the progression of information through the scoping review into categories.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Categorization of material pertaining to health system report card methodologies.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Schneider EC, Lieberman T. Publicly Disclosed Information about the Quality of Healthcare: Response of the US Public. Qual Healthcare. 2001;10:96–103. doi: 10.1136/qhc.10.2.96. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. The NHS Plan. A Plan for Investment, a Plan for Reform. London, Department of Health; 2001. Ref Type: Report.
    1. Perlin JB, Kolodner RM, Roswell RH. The Veterans Health Administration: Quality, Value, Accountability, and Information as Transfroming Strategies for Patient-Centred Care. Am J Manag Care. 2004;10:828–836. - PubMed
    1. Marshall MN, Shekelle PG, Davies HT, Smith PC. Public Reporting on Quality in the United States and the United Kingdom. Health Affairs. 2003;22:134–148. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.22.3.134. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework. Int J Social Research Methodology. 2005;8:19–32. doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources