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
Meta-Analysis
. 2016 Jul 22:16:296.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1543-y.

The impact of Public Reporting on clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Paolo Campanella  1 , Vladimir Vukovic  2 , Paolo Parente  2 , Adela Sulejmani  2 , Walter Ricciardi  2 , Maria Lucia Specchia  2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

The impact of Public Reporting on clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Paolo Campanella et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: To assess both qualitatively and quantitatively the impact of Public Reporting (PR) on clinical outcomes, we carried out a systematic review of published studies on this topic.

Methods: Pubmed, Web of Science and SCOPUS databases were searched to identify studies published from 1991 to 2014 that investigated the relationship between PR and clinical outcomes. Studies were considered eligible if they investigated the relationship between PR and clinical outcomes and comprehensively described the PR mechanism and the study design adopted. Among the clinical outcomes identified, meta-analysis was performed for overall mortality rate which quantitative data were exhaustively reported in a sufficient number of studies. Two reviewers conducted all data extraction independently and disagreements were resolved through discussion. The same reviewers evaluated also the quality of the studies using a GRADE approach.

Results: Twenty-seven studies were included. Mainly, the effect of PR on clinical outcomes was positive. Meta-analysis regarding overall mortality included, in a context of high heterogeneity, 10 studies with a total of 1,840,401 experimental events and 3,670,446 control events and resulted in a RR of 0.85 (95 % CI, 0.79-0.92).

Conclusions: The introduction of PR programs at different levels of the healthcare sector is a challenging but rewarding public health strategy. Existing research covering different clinical outcomes supports the idea that PR could, in fact, stimulate providers to improve healthcare quality.

Keywords: Clinical outcomes; Healthcare quality; Public reporting; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart depicting literature search and study selection
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Meta-analysis of the PR effect on mortality as clinical outcome by facilities
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Meta-analysis of the PR effect on different mortality causes as clinical outcomes
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Totten AM, Wagner J, Tiwari A, O’Haire C, Griffin J, Walker M. Closing the quality gap: revisiting the state of the science (vol. 5: public reporting as a quality improvement strategy). Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2012;5:1–645. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Smith P, Mossialos E, Papanicolas I. Performance measurement for health system improvement: experiences, challenges and prospects. WHO Eur Minist Conf Heal Syst. 2008;1:1–22.
    1. Lansky D. Improving quality through public disclosure of performance information. Health Aff. 2002;21:52–62. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.21.4.52. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hibbard JH. What Can We Say about the impact of public reporting ? inconsistent. Ann Intern Med. 2012;148:160–161. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-148-2-200801150-00011. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fung CH, Lim Y, Mattke S, Damberg C, Shekelle PG. Systematic review: the evidence that publishing patient care performance data improves quality of care. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:111–23. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-148-2-200801150-00006. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources