Background

Patient-reported measures attempt to quantify the value health services provide to users. Satisfaction is a common summative measure, but often has limited utility in identifying poor quality care. We compared satisfaction and the net promoter score (NPS), which was developed to help businesses quantify consumer sentiment, in a nationally representative survey in Peru. We aimed to compare NPS and satisfaction as individual ratings of care, assess the relationship of patient-reported experience ratings to these outcome measures and consider the utility of these measures as indicators of facility performance based on reliability within facilities and capacity to discriminate between facilities.

Methods

We analysed the 2016 National Survey on User Satisfaction of Health Services, a cross-sectional outpatient exit survey. We assessed ratings by patient characteristics and compared the distributions of satisfaction and NPS categories. We tested the association of patient-reported experience measures with each outcome using multilevel ordinal logistic regression. We used intraclass correlation (ICC) from these models to predict minimum sample for reliable assessment and compared patient-reported experience measures in facilities with average satisfaction but below or above average NPS.

Results

13 434 individuals rated services at 184 facilities. Satisfaction (74% satisfied) and NPS (17% reported at least 9 out of 10) were largely concordant within individuals but weakly correlated (0.37). Ratings varied by individual factors such as age and visit purpose. Most domains of patient-reported experience were associated with both outcomes. Adjusted ICC was higher for NPS (0.26 vs 0.11), requiring a minimum of 7 (vs 20) respondents for adequate reliability. Within the 70% of facilities classified as average based on satisfaction, NPS-based classification revealed systematic differences in patient-reported experience measures.

Conclusion

While satisfaction and NPS were broadly similar at an individual level, this evidence suggests NPS may be useful for benchmarking facility performance as part of national efforts in Peru and throughout Latin America to identify deficits in health service quality.

Over 600,000 newborns in India died in their first month of life in 2017 despite large increases in access to maternal health services. We assess whether maternal and newborn health system quality in India is adequate for institutional delivery to reduce neonatal mortality. We identified recent births from the cross-sectional 2015-2016 National Family Health Survey and used reported content of antenatal care and immediate postpartum care averaged at the district level to characterize health system quality for maternity and newborn services. We used random effect logistic models to assess the relationship between institutional delivery and neonatal (death within the first 28 days of life) and early neonatal (death within 7 days of live births) mortality by quintile of district maternal and newborn health system quality. Three quarters of 191,963 births were in health facilities; 2% of newborns died within 28 days. District-level quality scores ranged from 40 to 90% of expected interventions. Institutional delivery was not protective against newborn mortality in the districts with poorest health system quality, but was associated with decreased mortality in districts with higher quality. Predicted neonatal mortality in the highest quintile of quality would be 0.018 (95% CI 0.010, 0.026) for home delivery and 0.010 (0.007, 0.013) for institutional delivery. Measurement of quality is limited by lack of data on quality of acute and referral care. Institutional delivery is associated with meaningful survival gains where quality of maternity services is higher. Addressing health system quality is an essential element of achieving the promise of increased access to maternal health services.

Background

For more than two decades, national career development programs (CDPs) have addressed underrepresentation of women faculty in academic medicine through career and leadership curricula. We evaluated CDP participation impact on retention.

Methods

We used Association of American Medical Colleges data to compare 3268 women attending CDPs from 1988 to 2008 with 17,834 women and 40,319 men nonparticipant faculty similar to CDP participants in degree, academic rank, first year of appointment in rank, and home institution. Measuring from first year in rank to departure from last position held or December 2009 (study end date), we used Kaplan-Meier curves; Cox survival analysis adjusted for age, degree, tenure, and department; and 10-year rates to compare retention.

Results

CDP participants were significantly less likely to leave academic medicine than their peers for up to 8 years after appointment as Assistant and Associate Professors. Full Professor participants were significantly less likely to leave than non-CDP women. Men left less often than non-CDP women at every rank. Participants attending more than one CDP left less often than those attending one, but results varied by rank. Patterns of switching institutions after 10 years varied by rank; CDP participants switched significantly less often than men at Assistant and Associate Professor levels and significantly less often than non-CDP women among Assistant Professors. Full Professors switched at equal rates.

Conclusion

National CDPs appear to offer retention advantage to women faculty, with implications for faculty performance and capacity building within academic medicine. Intervals of retention advantage for CDP participants suggest vulnerable periods for intervention.

The social and behavioural determinants of COVID-19 vaccination have been described previously. However, little is known about how vaccinated people use and rate their health system. We used surveys conducted in 14 countries to study the health system correlates of COVID-19 vaccination. Country-specific logistic regression models were adjusted for respondent age, education, income, chronic illness, history of COVID-19, urban residence, and minority ethnic, racial, or linguistic group. Estimates were summarised across countries using random effects meta-analysis. Vaccination coverage with at least two or three doses ranged from 29% in India to 85% in Peru. Greater health-care use, having a regular and high-quality provider, and receiving other preventive health services were positively associated with vaccination. Confidence in the health system and government also increased the odds of vaccination. By contrast, having unmet health-care needs or experiencing discrimination or a medical mistake decreased the odds of vaccination. Associations between health system predictors and vaccination tended to be stronger in high-income countries and in countries with the most COVID-19-related deaths. Access to quality health systems might affect vaccine decisions. Building strong primary care systems and ensuring a baseline level of quality that is affordable for all should be central to pandemic preparedness strategies.