Assessing the responsiveness of chronic disease care - Is the World Health Organization's concept of health system responsiveness applicable?

Julia Röttger, Miriam Blümel, Sabine Fuchs and Reinhard Busse

Social Science & Medicine, 2014, vol. 113, issue C, 87-94

Abstract: The concept of health system responsiveness is an important dimension of health system performance assessment. Further efforts have been made in recent years to improve the analysis of responsiveness measurements, yet few studies have applied the responsiveness concept to the evaluation of specific health care delivery structures. The objective of this study was to test the World Health Organization's (WHO's) responsiveness concept for an application in the evaluation of chronic disease care. In September and October 2012 we conducted four focus groups of chronically ill people (n = 38) in Germany, in which participants discussed their experiences and expectations regarding health care. The data was analyzed deductively (on the basis of the WHO responsiveness concept) and inductively using directed content analysis. Ten themes related to health system responsiveness and one theme (finances) not directly related to health system responsiveness, but of high importance to the focus group participants, could be identified. Eight of the ten responsiveness themes are consistent with the WHO concept. Additionally, two new themes were identified: trust (consultation and treatment are not led by any motive other than the patients' wellbeing) and coordination (treatment involving different providers is coordinated and different actors communicate with each other). These findings indicate the suitability of the WHO responsiveness concept for the evaluation of chronic disease care. However, some amendments, in particular an extension of the concept to include the two domains trust and coordination, are necessary for a thorough assessment of the responsiveness of chronic disease care.

Keywords: Chronic disease care; Health system responsiveness; Client orientation; Respect for persons; Patient expectations; Patient experiences; Focus groups; Germany (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2014
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953614003037
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:socmed:v:113:y:2014:i:c:p:87-94

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional
http://www.elsevier. ... _01_ooc_1&version=01

DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.05.009

Access Statistics for this article

Social Science & Medicine is currently edited by Ichiro (I.) Kawachi and S.V. (S.V.) Subramanian

More articles in Social Science & Medicine from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().