What do we know? Limitations of the two methods most commonly used to estimate the length of the prospective wait

Author:

Armstrong Paul W1

Affiliation:

1. School of Health and Bioscience, University of East London, Romford Road, Stratford, London, UK

Abstract

Health service researchers, policy analysts and other commentators have overlooked the limitations of existing approaches to the estimation of waiting times. If urgent cases are given priority, there are no instances when census-based data can supply accurate estimates of the length of the prospective wait. But there are three occasions when event-based data supply accurate estimates of the prospective wait of those who chose to enrol and we can predict the direction of error when the relevant conditions are violated if we know whether the list was open or closed, and whether it grew in size or shrank. Without this additional information, we cannot determine whether the changes we observe over time or the differences we see between one list and the next are spurious or not. The period life-table provides a timely and bias-free alternative to the existing cross-sectional approaches for a modest increase in the complexity of calculation.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Health Policy

Reference51 articles.

1. HanningM. Measuring and Comparing Waiting Lists. A Study of Four European Countries. Brussels: HOPE, 2004:8

2. Maximum waiting time — a threat to clinical freedom?

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3