Public Opinion About #MeToo Victims and Offenders: A Nationwide Experiment

During the #MeToo movement, many sexual assault survivors are discredited because of their delay in disclosure or failure to report to the police. The current study investigates which factors influence public opinion towards sexual assault victims and offenders by analyzing data from a national factorial survey. Results show disclosing the offense immediately to the public, reporting to the police, and having a witness are positively related to punitive attitudes towards the offender, via increased perceived credibility of the victim. The results highlight the importance of understanding extralegal factors in shaping stereotypic views about sexual assault in the #MeToo era.

Quality Improvement Efforts in VA Community Living Centers Increased Following Public Reporting of Performance

In 2018, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) began publicly reporting performance ratings for its 134 Community Living Centers (CLCs; nursing homes) based on health inspections, staffing, and clinical quality measures. CLCs operate within a large, integrated healthcare system with unique financial and market incentives. Although public reporting has led to quality improvements in non-VA nursing homes, we do not know whether CLCs respond to public reporting differently than private sector nursing homes. To address this knowledge gap, we used a comparative case study approach involving 3 purposively selected CLCs with varied (low, medium, high) performance ratings. We conducted semi-structured interviews with personnel (n=12) responsible for quality measurement and improvement. Interviews focused on opinions of public reporting, actions taken to improve performance ratings, and motivations for change. Participants indicated public reporting improved transparency and provided an “outside perspective” on their performance. Strategies to improve performance ratings involved 1) data/information, 2) individual roles, and 3) teamwork/communication. All 3 CLCs made changes in these areas, yet respondents in the higher performing CLCs described implementing more strategies immediately after learning their ratings. Respondents in all 3 CLCs described being motivated to deliver good care and achieve public ratings that reflected the care they provided. This meant addressing internal weaknesses that contributed to lower scores for 2 CLCs. Our findings suggest public reporting may improve internal data collection, reporting, and quality improvement efforts in CLCs. They highlight the potential positive impact of public reporting in prompting quality improvement in nursing homes.

Considerations for Improving Reporting and Analysis of Date-Based COVID-19 Surveillance Data by Public Health Agencies

More than a year after the first domestic COVID-19 cases, the United States does not have national standards for COVID-19 surveillance data analysis and public reporting. This has led to dramatic variations in surveillance practices among public health agencies, which analyze and present newly confirmed cases by a wide variety of dates. The choice of which date to use should be guided by a balance between interpretability and epidemiological relevance. Report date is easily interpretable, generally representative of outbreak trends, and available in surveillance data sets. These features make it a preferred date for public reporting and visualization of surveillance data, although it is not appropriate for epidemiological analyses of outbreak dynamics. Symptom onset date is better suited for such analyses because of its clinical and epidemiological relevance. However, using symptom onset for public reporting of new confirmed cases can cause confusion because reporting lags result in an artificial decline in recent cases. We hope this discussion is a starting point toward a more standardized approach to date-based surveillance. Such standardization could improve public comprehension, policymaking, and outbreak response. (Am J Public Health. 2021;111(12):2127–2132. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306520 )

How should we present the epidemic curve for COVID-19?

Epidemic curves are used by decision makers and the public to infer the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic and to understand the appropriateness of response measures. Symptom onset date is commonly used to date incident cases on the epidemic curve in public health reports and dashboards; however, third-party trackers date cases by the date they were publicly reported by the public health authority. These two curves create very different impressions of epidemic progression. On April 1, 2020, the epidemic curve based on public reporting date for Ontario, Canada showed an accelerating epidemic, whereas the curve based on a proxy variable for symptom onset date showed a rapidly declining epidemic. This illusory downward trend is a feature of epidemic curves anchored using date variables earlier in time than the date a case was publicly reported, such as the symptom onset date. Delays between the onset of symptoms and the detection of a case by the public health authority mean that recent days will always have incomplete case data, creating a downward bias. Public reporting date is not subject to this bias and can be used to visualize real-time epidemic curves meant to inform the public and decision makers.

A decade of commitment to hospital quality of care: overview of and perceptions on multicomponent quality improvement policies involving accreditation, public reporting, inspection and pay-for-performance

Background Quality improvement (QI) initiatives such as accreditation, public reporting, inspection and pay-for-performance are increasingly being implemented globally. In Flanders, Belgium, a government policy for acute-care hospitals incorporates aforementioned initiatives. Currently, questions are raised on the sustainability of the present policy. Objective First, to summarise the various initiatives hospitals have adopted under government encouragement between 2008 and 2019. Second, to study the perspectives of healthcare stakeholders on current government policy. Methods In this multi-method study, we collected data on QI initiative implementation from governmental and institutional sources and through an online survey among hospital quality managers. We compiled an overview of QI initiative implementation for all Flemish acute-care hospitals between 2008 (n = 62) and 2019 (n = 53 after hospital mergers). Stakeholder perspectives were assessed via a second survey available to all healthcare employees and a focus group with healthcare policy experts was consulted. Variation between professions was assessed. Results QI initiatives have been increasingly implemented, especially from 2016 onwards, with the majority (87%) of hospitals having obtained a first accreditation label and all hospitals publicly reporting performance indicators, receiving regular inspections and having entered the pay-for-performance initiative. On the topic of external international accreditation, overall attitudes within the survey were predominantly neutral (36.2%), while 34.5% expressed positive and 29.3% negative views towards accreditation. In examining specific professional groups in-depth, we learned 58% of doctors regarded accreditation negatively, while doctors were judged to be the largest contributors to quality according to the majority of respondents. Conclusions Hospitals have demonstrated increased efforts into QI, especially since 2016, while perceptions on currently implemented QI initiatives among healthcare stakeholders are heterogeneous. To assure quality of care remains a top-priority for acute-care hospitals, we recommend a revision of the current multicomponent quality policy where the adoption of all initiatives is streamlined and co-created bottom-up.