Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorTwerenbold, Claudia-
dc.contributor.authorGratwohl, A-
dc.contributor.authorEichler, Klaus-
dc.contributor.authorHostettler, S-
dc.contributor.authorBrügger, Urs-
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-21T13:44:45Z-
dc.date.available2019-08-21T13:44:45Z-
dc.date.issued2015-
dc.identifier.issn1098-3015de_CH
dc.identifier.issn1524-4733de_CH
dc.identifier.urihttps://digitalcollection.zhaw.ch/handle/11475/17945-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: Medical registers are recognized as an important tool in health services research (HSR) and health technology assessment (HTA). However, optimal use remains to be defined. In 2011, the Swiss Medical Association (FMH) launched a project to systematically list all medical registers in Switzerland to improve transparency and networking. This interim analysis shows the current state, potential weaknesses and needs for action. Methods: This prospective study analyzed function, classification (epidemiological/clinical) and current status of all Swiss medical registers listed on the FMH database. We integrated purpose and properties by a self-developed typology. Based on our findings, we describe current state and suggest new directions. Results: 33 registers were classified as clinical, 36 as epidemiological, and 4 as “other”. 66 (90%) were active. The purpose of the registers (epidemiological surveillance, quality management, prioritization, HTA) was often not specified 28 registers were run by a university (14 clinical, 12 epidemiological, 2 ”other”),35 (10/23/2) by a public institution, 10 (9/1/0) by a commercial company. Clinical registers have the highest probability to be run by a commercial company (RR= 2.36;[CI: 1.62-3.44]. 37 registers were national (18/ 18/1), 60 national and international (82%;33/24/3) and 13 local (0/12/1). 30 registers (41%) were mandatory with no significant differences between the different types. 4 registers were linked to HTA decision making. There was an overlap in 4 trauma registers and we identified registers that are not listed in the FMH database. Only 6 clinical registers have an auditing system in place (9%; 95%-CI 2-14;), none a standardized quality management system. Conclusions: There is documented goodwill to conduct medical registers in Switzerland, and to make them available to the medical community, to HTA and HSR.There appears a need for a quality management system and supervision at a higher level to safeguard quality standards and transparency.de_CH
dc.language.isoende_CH
dc.publisherElsevierde_CH
dc.relation.ispartofValue in healthde_CH
dc.rightsLicence according to publishing contractde_CH
dc.subject.ddc362: Gesundheits- und Sozialdienstede_CH
dc.titleState of the art of medical registers in Switzerland 2015 : more questions than answersde_CH
dc.typeKonferenz: Sonstigesde_CH
dcterms.typeTextde_CH
zhaw.departementSchool of Management and Lawde_CH
zhaw.organisationalunitWinterthurer Institut für Gesundheitsökonomie (WIG)de_CH
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.1866de_CH
zhaw.conference.detailsISPOR 18th Annual European Congress, MIlan, Italy, 7-11 November 2015de_CH
zhaw.funding.euNode_CH
zhaw.issue7de_CH
zhaw.originated.zhawYesde_CH
zhaw.publication.statuspublishedVersionde_CH
zhaw.volume18de_CH
zhaw.publication.reviewPeer review (Abstract)de_CH
zhaw.title.proceedingsISPOR 18th Annual European Congress research abstractsde_CH
zhaw.author.additionalNode_CH
Appears in Collections:Publikationen School of Management and Law

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.