Table 3.
Relevance ratings of institutions (n = 22) by framework sub-dimensions ((mean/min/max) median per indicator)
| Sub-dimension | All indicators (n = 374) | Mean selectedb (n = 212) | Mean not selectedb (n = 162) | Difference selected - not selected | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Min | Max | ||||
| Non-medical determinants of health | |||||||
| health behaviours | 7.9 | 0.7 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 7.9 | -a | – |
| social determinants | 5.8 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 8.0 | 7.3 | 4.8 | 2.5 |
| demographic factors | 6.7 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 8.0 | 7.6 | 5.8 | 1.9 |
| Health status | |||||||
| morbidity | 7.3 | 0.7 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 7.4 | 6.0 | 1.4 |
| mortality | 6.8 | 0.7 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 7.2 | 6.0 | 1.2 |
| Utilisation of the health system | |||||||
| prevention & health promotion | 7.3 | 0.8 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 7.7 | 6.0 | 1.7 |
| outpatient care | 7.0 | 0.7 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 7.3 | 6.0 | 1.3 |
| semi or full inpatient care | 6.5 | 0.8 | 6.5 | 8.5 | 7.1 | 5.8 | 1.3 |
| Health system performance | |||||||
| accessibility | 6.2 | 1.1 | 6.5 | 8.0 | 7.1 | 5.2 | 1.9 |
| patient centeredness | 6.1 | 1.2 | 3.5 | 7.5 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 2.0 |
| continuity | 7.4 | 0.6 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 7.5 | 6.0 | 1.5 |
| effectiveness & efficiency | 6.1 | 1.4 | 3.0 | 8.0 | 7.3 | 5.0 | 2.3 |
| safety | 6.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 5.6 | 2.4 |
| Healthcare provision | |||||||
| facilities | 6.8 | 0.7 | 5.0 | 8.0 | 7.1 | 5.8 | 1.3 |
| professionals | 6.5 | 0.8 | 4.5 | 8.0 | 7.1 | 5.7 | 1.4 |
| technology | 5.7 | 0.9 | 4.0 | 7.0 | 6.8 | 5.3 | 1.5 |
| honorary office | 6.0 | 0.2 | 5.5 | 6.0 | -a | 5.8 | – |
The figures presented in this table are based on the median value per indicator resulting from the relevance assessment of participating institutions. E.g. for the sub-dimension health behaviours the mean value over the median value for the 4 indicators of this subdimension is 7.9
Likert-type scale for relevance ratings (1 = not relevant at all to 9 = highly relevant)
SD standard deviation; a Either all or none of the indicators were selected; b Formal consent about the selection i.e. relevance of an indicator was defined by a median in [6.5–9]