Female attitudes towards the idea of co-participation in the costs of hospital treatment
Keywords:
gynecological operations, medical care services, co-participation in the costs of medical careAbstract
Introduction. The idea of patients’ co-participation in the costs of medical care services first appeared when the authorities began to reform the system of medical care.
Aim. The purpose of the study was to investigate the attitudes of women undergoing gynecological operations towards the idea of co-participation in the costs of hospital treatment and to find out what part of money allocated for summer holidays they would be ready to spend on treatment.
Material and methods. In total 272 women, who underwent elective gynecological operation within two months in 2008 were surveyed. The women were asked to fill in a specially developed questionnaire on the second day following the operation. First, the questionnaire was verified by pilot study in the group of 25 women; their results were excluded from final scores.
Results. The results confirmed found that the respondents who had higher education supported the idea of co-participation in covering the costs of treatment more often (p=0.002), living in big cities (p=0.04), married (p=0.02), employed (p=0.01) and in better economic situation (p=0.001). The age turned out to be insignificant (p=0.09). The respondents reported that they were ready to use all that money to co-participate in the costs of hospital treatment - 148 women (54.4%); 34 (12.5%) respondents would use half the money for that; 74 (27.2%) women were unable to take decision and 16 (5.9%) would definitely not use that money for that. Variables assumed in the study, apart from living place, marital status and subjective perception of social conditions significantly differentiated the frequency of these statements.
Conclusions. Women’s attitudes towards co-participation in the costs of hospital treatment vary and significantly correlate with education, place of living, professional and family status aside their economic situation. The fact that women are ready to resign from the money allocated for annual leave to co-participate in the costs of hospital treatment depends on their age, level of education, professional and family status and medical indication for surgery.
References
1. Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z dnia 2 kwietnia 1997 r., Dz. U. Nr 78, poz. 483 z późn. zm.
2. Kalinowski P, Jędrzejewska B. Dostępność usług medycznych po reformie służby zdrowia w Polsce – opinie pacjentów. Zdr Publ.
2004;114:8-9.
3. Górecki W. Listy oczekujących jako narzędzie zarządzania dostępem do świadczeń. Zdr Publ. 2005;115:345-51.
4. Gruszczak A, Dudzińska M, Piątkowski W, et al. Dostępność usług medycznych w opinii pacjentów. Zdr Publ. 2007;117:440-4.
5. Pączkowska M. Dostępność świadczeń zdrowotnych w opinii Polaków. Raport z badań. Centrum Systemów Informacyjnych Ochrony Zdrowia. Warszawa; 2007.
6. Wroński K, Cywiński J, Bocian R. Jakość usług medycznych. Gin Prakt. 2008;16:42-45.
7. Holzer JZ. Demografia. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo PWE; 2003.
8. Stanisz A. Przystępny kurs statystyki w oparciu o program STATISTICA PL na przykładach z medycyny. Kraków: Wydawnictwo StatSoft, Polska; 2001.
9. Borek-Wojciechowska R, Kłokow S. Dostępność świadczeń opieki zdrowotnej jako jeden z aspektów jakości opieki Zdr Publ. 2007;117:381-5.
10. Breckenkamp J, Wiskow C, Laaser U. Progress on quality management in the German health system – a long and winding road. Health Res Policy Syst. 2007;5:7.
11. Eckert H, Resch KL. Quality management – quo vadis? Perspectives for quality management in hospitals. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich. 2003;97:219-26.
12. Dückers M, Makai P, Vos L, et al. Longitudinal analysis on the development of hospital quality management systems in the Netherlands.
Int J Qual Health Care. 2009;21:330-40.
13. Makai P, Klazinga N, Wagner C, et al. Quality management and patient safety: survey results from 102 Hungarian hospitals. Health Policy. 2009;90:175-80.
14. Sluijs E, Wagner C. Progress in the implementation of Quality Management in Dutch health care: 1995–2000. Int J Qual Health Care. 2003:15:223-34.
15. CBOS. Gotowość do zmian w służbie zdrowia. Raport z badań. Warszawa; 2010.
16. Makówka M. Społeczno-ekonomiczne aspekty czasu wolnego. Zeszyty Naukowe AE. 2006;716:41-53.
17. Kearney N, Miller M, Paul J, et al. Oncology health care professionals’ attitudes to cancer: a professional concern. Ann Oncol. 2003;14:57-61.
18. Derkacz M. Defibrylacja kasą, czyli o pilnej potrzebie współpłacenia za usługi medyczne. Sł Zdr. 2009;26;12-4.
19. Szczęsny J. Strach przed współpłaceniem. Menedżer Zdrowia. 2008:2;12-6.
20. Anderson RJ, Amarasingham R, Pickens SS. The quest for quality: perspectives from the safety net. Front Health Serv Manage. 2007;23:15- 28.
21. Ballem P. Guaranteeing accountability for quality care. Healthc Pap. 2007;7:61-5.
22. Mitton C, Dionne F, Peacock S, et al. Quality and cost in healthcare: a relationship worth examining. Appl Heath Econ Health Policy. 2006;5:201-8.
23. Selbmann HK. Assessment and certification of hospital care in Germany. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2004;47:103-10.
24. Singh HR, Singh VR. Advantage technology, equitable usage of available resources and infrastructure and effective practice management– key to quality healthcare delivery in India. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;127:31-42.
25. Wroński K, Cywiński J, Bocian R. Jakość usług medycznych. Gin Prakt. 2008;2:42-5.
