Relevance of quality indicators for supporting patients’ choice of hospitals: a systematic review

Clicks: 36
ID: 323180
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #35 of 158 articles by views in turkish journal of public health

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 158 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Background In many countries, the health systems allow patients to have free selection of the hospital where they wish to receive treatment. The market for hospital services is a competitive market, where competition not necessarily happens over costs but over the quality of care. So far, only limited information on patient preferences of hospital choice is available. Methods The aim of this study was to provide a systematic review about the relevance of the quality indicators for patients when making a choice of hospital for inpatient treatment, which we conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. We retrieved studies from PubMed, Web of Science, and EconLit and assessed them according to predefined criteria. To be eligible for our purposes, studies needed to examine inpatient preferences for hospital choice in North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. The extracted quality indicators were then sorted according to study type (quantitative or qualitative), main indication (cancer, orthopedics, gastrointestinal, cardiology, and other), and structure, process, or outcome quality following Donabedian’s framework. Study quality was assessed with the Mixed-Methods-Appraisal-Tool (MMAT). Results Fifty-one studies met inclusion criteria. We extracted 24 quality indicators (ten structure, five process, five experiences and recommendations as a sub-category of process indicators, and four outcome). The most frequently examined one was “proximity to hospital/travel distance or time” ( n = 38). Structure and process indicators were examined often, as well as experiences and recommendation indicators, while outcome indicators were examined seldom. Conclusion We found few studies conducting qualitative research and more studies examining stated preferences than revealed preferences. Structure and process quality indicators were examined frequently, while outcome quality indicators were examined seldom, potentially either because patients do not consider them important or because little information on them is available. More qualitative and mixed methods studies are needed, as well as information on additional quality indicators.
Reference Key
openalex_W7172136378 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Malin Hüllemann, M Leitner, Simin Tahmasebi-Gandomkari, André Hajek, Hans-Helmut König
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal turkish journal of public health
Year 2026
DOI
10.1007/s10389-026-02861-6
URL
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10389-026-02861-6.pdf
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.