Health Services Research: Optimizing Delivery of Care

2012 ◽  
Vol 147 (5) ◽  
pp. 841-847 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gordon H. Sun

Objective Determine current health services research (HSR) publication trends in major general otolaryngology journals. Study Design Bibliometric analysis. Methods All main issues of 8 high-impact general-interest otolaryngology journals published worldwide in 2002, 2005, 2008, and 2011 were searched for HSR-related publications. To qualify as HSR, the abstract of the article must discuss access to care, cost, delivery of care, financing, health organizational or system issues, quality of care, resource utilization, and/or health outcomes. Otolaryngology topics were classified as general, pediatrics, oncology, otology and neurotology, sleep disorders, sinonasal disease, facial plastics, and/or laryngology. Other key measures included study authorship and external sponsorship or mechanism of support. Results Of 5958 total articles, 449 (7.5%) qualified as HSR. There was a statistically significant increase in the number of HSR publications across all journals from 2002 to 2011 ( P < .001). Outcomes research (337, 75.1%) was the most common type of HSR being published. The most common subject was oncology (112, 24.9%), whereas the least represented was trauma and facial plastics (4, 0.9%). First and corresponding authors were based in 31 countries, although the United States was the predominant country of origin. Nearly 95% of HSR articles in the current sample demonstrated multidisciplinary authorship. An estimated 22.9% of first authors and 17.8% of corresponding authors were female. Two-thirds of HSR publications reported no external sponsor, whereas the remainder was supported most commonly by philanthropy and hospital-based sources. Conclusion Health services research is an international, multidisciplinary field of inquiry with an increasing presence in major otolaryngology journals.


2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Elwood Martin ◽  
Greg Hislop ◽  
Veronika Moravan ◽  
Garry Grams ◽  
Betty Calam

2007 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
D. Rosenfield ◽  
C. Abrahams ◽  
S. Verma

The maldistribution of and lack of access to health professionals continues to be a major issue for policymakers at all levels of government. Additionally, the basis by which Health Human Resource (HHR) policy is determined is unclear. Publications found in independent reports, peer-reviewed journals and most importantly, grey literature, can significantly influence or inform major policy decisions for “hot button” HHR issues (1) . We propose a framework that can be used to classify, rank and evaluate HHR policy/planning documents. Our framework creates six major criteria that are used to evaluate policy documents. These criteria are: 1) literature review, 2) source of primary information, 3) nature of recommendations, 4) implementation strategies, 5) credibility of authors and 6) credibility of publisher. Within each category, a score from zero to three (for criteria 1-4) or zero to two (criteria 5-6) is assigned, depending on the caliber of the document. Summing the scores from each section yields a document’s overall score. The intent of this measure is two-fold. Firstly, we want to create a tool that can be widely utilized by policymakers to help inform their decisions. Secondly, it can be used as a springboard to stimulate discussion and debate around HHR planning and policy formulation. National Information Center on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology. (NICHSR) Health Services Research and Health Policy Grey Literature Project: Summary Report. 2006. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/ nichsr/greylitreport_06.html. Accessed February 20, 2007.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document