IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bol/bodewp/wp933.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are bad health and pain making us grumpy? An empirical evaluation of reporting heterogeneity in rating health system responsiveness

Author

Listed:
  • G. Fiorentini
  • G. Ragazzi
  • S. Robone

Abstract

This paper considers the influence of patients’ characteristics on their evaluation of a health system’s responsiveness, that is, a system’s ability to respond to the legitimate expectations of potential users regarding non-health enhancing aspects of care (Valentine et al. 2003a). Since responsiveness is evaluated by patients on a categorical scale, their selfevaluation can be affected by the phenomenon of reporting heterogeneity (Rice et al. 2012). A few studies have investigated how standard socio-demographic characteristics influence the reporting style of health care users with regard to the question of the health system’s responsiveness (Sirven et al. 2012, Rice et al. 2012). However, we are not aware of any studies that focus explicitly on the influence that both the patients’ state of health and their experiencing of pain have on the way in which they report on system responsiveness. This paper tries to bridge this gap by using data regarding a sample of patients hospitalized in four Local Health Authorities (LHA) in Italy’s Emilia-Romagna region between 2010 and 2012. These patients have evaluated 27 different aspects of the quality of care, concerning five domains of responsiveness (communication, social support, privacy, dignity and quality of facilities). Data have been stratified into five sub-samples, according to these domains. We estimate a generalized ordered probit model (Terza, 1985), an extension of the standard ordered probit model which permits the reporting behaviour of respondents to be modelled as a function of certain respondents’ characteristics, which in our analysis are represented by the variables “state of health” and “pain”. Our results suggest that unhealthier patients are more likely to report a lower level of responsiveness, all other things being equal, while patients experiencing pain are more likely to make use of the extreme categories of responsiveness, that is, to choose the category “completely dissatisfied” or the category “completely satisfied”. These results hold across all five domains of responsiveness.

Suggested Citation

  • G. Fiorentini & G. Ragazzi & S. Robone, 2014. "Are bad health and pain making us grumpy? An empirical evaluation of reporting heterogeneity in rating health system responsiveness," Working Papers wp933, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
  • Handle: RePEc:bol:bodewp:wp933
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://amsacta.unibo.it/3993/1/WP933.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rice, N & Robone, S & Smith, P.C, 2008. "International Comparison of Public Sector Performance: The Use of Anchoring Vignettes to adjust Self-Reported Data," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 08/28, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    2. Robone, S & Rice, N & Smith, P, 2010. "Health systems’ responsiveness and its characteristics: a cross-country comparative analysis," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 10/29, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    3. Jones, Andrew M. & Rice, Nigel & Robone, Silvana & Dias, Pedro Rosa, 2011. "Inequality and polarisation in health systems' responsiveness: A cross-country analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 616-625, July.
    4. Stephen Pudney & Michael Shields, 2000. "Gender, race, pay and promotion in the British nursing profession: estimation of a generalized ordered probit model," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 367-399.
    5. Nigel Rice & Silvana Robone & Peter C. Smith, 2012. "Vignettes and health systems responsiveness in cross‐country comparative analyses," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 175(2), pages 337-369, April.
    6. George France & Francesco Taroni & Andrea Donatini, 2005. "The Italian health-care system," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(S1), pages 187-202.
    7. Nicolas Sirven & Brigitte Santos-Eggimann & Jacques Spagnoli, 2012. "Comparability of Health Care Responsiveness in Europe," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 105(2), pages 255-271, January.
    8. Teresa Bago d'Uva & Eddy Van Doorslaer & Maarten Lindeboom & Owen O'Donnell, 2008. "Does reporting heterogeneity bias the measurement of health disparities?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(3), pages 351-375.
    9. Valentine, Nicole & Darby, Charles & Bonsel, Gouke J., 2008. "Which aspects of non-clinical quality of care are most important? Results from WHO's general population surveys of "health systems responsiveness" in 41 countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1939-1950, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. G. Fiorentini & S. Robone & R. Verzulli, 2016. "How do hospital-specialty characteristics influence health system responsiveness? An empirical evaluation of in-patient care in the Italian Region of Emilia-Romagna," Working Papers wp1077, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other
    • C50 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - General
    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bol:bodewp:wp933. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/sebolit.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.