The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Public Release of Performance Data: What Do We Expect to Gain? A Review of the Evidence
Abstract
CONTEXT: Information about the performance of hospitals, health professionals, and health care organizations has been made public in the United States for more than a decade. The expected gains of public disclosure have not been made clear, and both the benefits and potential risks have received minimal empirical investigation. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the empirical evidence concerning public disclosure of performance data, relate the results to the potential gains, and identify areas requiring further research. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted on MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for articles published between January 1986 and October 1999 in peer-reviewed journals. Review of citations, public documents, and expert advice was conducted to identify studies not found in the electronic databases. STUDY SELECTION: Descriptive, observational, or experimental evaluations of US reporting systems were selected for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION: Included studies were organized based on use of public data by consumers, purchasers, physicians, and hospitals; impact on quality of care outcomes; and costs. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven US reporting systems have been the subject of published empirical evaluations. Descriptive and observational methods predominate. Consumers and purchasers rarely search out the information and do not understand or trust it; it has a small, although increasing, impact on their decision making. Physicians are skeptical about such data and only a small proportion makes use of it. Hospitals appear to be most responsive to the data. In a limited number of studies, the publication of performance data has been associated with an improvement in health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There are several potential gains from the public disclosure of performance data, but use of the information by provider organizations for quality improvement may be the most productive area for further research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
WRITING COMMITTEE MEMBERS, Hunt, S. A., Abraham, W. T., Chin, M. H., Feldman, A. M., Francis, G. S., Ganiats, T. G., Jessup, M., Konstam, M. A., Mancini, D. M., et al. (2005) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.105.167586 · Cited by 2,251
Ferlie, E. B., & Shortell, S. M. (2001) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/1468-0009.00206 · Cited by 1,335
Public Reporting and Pay for Performance in Hospital Quality Improvement
Lindenauer, P. K., Remus, D., Roman, S., Rothberg, M. B., Benjamin, E. M., Ma, A., & Bratzler, D. W. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa064964 · Cited by 854
Full Disclosure: The Perils and Promise of Transparency
Fung, A., Graham, M., & Weil, D. (2007) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511510533 · Cited by 752
Quality Disclosure and Certification: Theory and Practice
Dranove, D., & Jin, G. Z. (2010) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.48.4.935 · Cited by 740
Metadata
- Authors
- Marshall, M. N., Shekelle, P. G., Leatherman, S., & Brook, R. H.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2000-04-12
- Volume
- 283
- Issue
- 14
- Pages
- 1866
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2092582371
- Cited by
- 840
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 117.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Public Release of Performance Data: What Do We Expect to Gain? A Review of the Evidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.283.14.1866
- The paper
- Marshall, M. N., Shekelle, P. G., Leatherman, S., & Brook, R. H. (2000). The Public Release of Performance Data: What Do We Expect to Gain? A Review of the Evidence. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.14.1866
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.