Part II of the results of the 2018 'Benchmarking' study—analysed to highlight the capabilities and weaknesses of patient groups from 21 countries/geographic areas of the world
Press release. The results of a new survey:
BENCHMARKING THE PATIENT MOVEMENT, 2018
Part II: country/region analysis
Embargoed publication date of Part II of the 'Benchmarking' report: Thursday, 30th August 2018, 6am GMT
The 'Benchmarking the Patient Movement 2018' study finds the patient movement of 2018 to have far more impact on society than it did when the first 'Benchmarking' study was carried out in 2012. However, 2018's patient movement remains fragmented, overly competitive, and its component patient groups continue to lack confidence about their role in national healthcare systems.
- The views of 1,016 patient groups from 84 countries.
- Drawn from an April 2018-July 2018 survey.
The results of the 2018 'Benchmarking' study is divided into two reports, Part I and Part II. Both parts analyse patient-group capabilities (2018 results are also compared with those of the 2014 and 2012 'Benchmarking' studies).
Part I was published on August 29th, 2018.
Part II of the 2018 'Benchmarking' report (Part II is published today) compares the strengths and weaknesses of patient groups from the following 21 countries/regions of the world:
Africa [new for 2018] (23 respondent patient groups) I Asia [new for 2018] (69) I Australasia (27) I Belgium [new for 2018] (40) I Central and South America (75) I Canada (29) I Cyprus/Greece [new for 2018] (16) I Eastern Europe (69) I France (65) I German-speaking countries [new for 2018] (134) I Germany (93) I Ireland [new for 2018] (21) I Italy (74) I Netherlands (36) I Nordic countries (40) I Portugal [new for 2018] (30) I Russia [new for 2018] (16) I Spain (100) I Switzerland [new for 2018] (25) I UK (80) I and USA (94)
Both Parts of the 2018 'Benchmarking' report are available separately, or together.
Why this 'Benchmarking' study?
Despite the obvious importance of patient groups, no real mechanism exists to measure the patient movement's impact upon healthcare—besides the rather arbitrary measures of the numbers of patient groups, or patient groups’ own accounts of their successes or failures. In 2012, PatientView set out to fill such a void in measurement by developing a benchmarking tool to assess the impact of patient groups in their fields of activity, and their significance in healthcare systems. The 2018 iteration of the 'Benchmarking' study is the third time the exercise has been conducted (the previous studies were completed in 2012 and 2014).
The 8 indicators for measuring the capability of patient groups
So, how did the patient groups from the 21 countries/regions of the world perform for capability?
Note to Table 1: Rankings in 2018 are out of 21 countries/regions. In the 2014 exercise, rankings were out of 12 countries/regions. And, in 2012, out of 10 countries/regions.
Table 1: Overall rankings at capability for patient groups from 21 different countries/geographic areas
- Overall 1st for capability – Australasian countries. 2018's 27 respondent patient groups from Australia and New Zealand attain overall 1st-place for capability out of 21 countries/regions. They also rank 1st for one of the eight individual indicators of capability: business stability. Among the seven subcategories of the business-stability indicator is regularly consulting with patients—at which Australasian patient groups are extremely efficient. As many as 93% of Australasian patient groups regularly consult their members, or the patients with whom they are
familiar. The result is important, because patient groups which consult with their constituency are more likely to hold a robust evidence base on patients’ views (including the medical needs of patients).
Australasian patient groups’ biggest area of weakness, though, is in networking with peer patient groups. Fewer Australasian patient groups carry out such networking in 2018 than they did in 2012 or 2014, and the region ranks only 19th in 2018 for this indicator of patient-group capability.
Overall 2nd – Cyprus/Greece. 2018 is the first year in which the Greek-speaking countries of Cyprus/Greece have featured in the 'Benchmarking' study. The 16 patient groups from the two countries rank overall 2nd out of 21 countries/regions for patient-group capability. This high ranking is because Cypriot/Greek patient groups rank 1st for two of the eight individual indicators of capability: providing services to patients; and reputation with other healthcare stakeholders. Nonetheless, Cypriot/Greek patient groups clearly struggle under significant challenges, because they rank only 14th out of 21 countries/regions for the indicator of resilience.
Overall 3rd – Nordic countries. 2018’s 40 respondent patient groups from the Nordic region rank overall 3rd out of 21 countries/regions, and excel at three of the eight individual indicators of capability: business stability (ranking 3rd); providing services to patients (2nd); and impact on government health policy (2nd)—all improvements on the Nordic countries' equivalent rankings in the 2014 'Benchmarking' survey. However, lack of funding for Nordic patient groups, and poor patient access to medicines, both seem to have become more serious issues for Nordic patient organisations since the 2014 survey—which is why Nordic patient groups rank just 11th for the indicator of resilience in 2018.
The 2018 'Benchmarking' study brings the analysis of patient-group capability completely up to date.
For further information about the methodology and overall findings, see yesterday's press release:
Sample pages for both Parts I and Parts II of the 2018 'Benchmarking' study are available. Click on the link below (then just scroll down that particular webpage):
ABOUT PART II OF THIS REPORT:
'Benchmarking the Patient Movement, 2018. Part II: Analysing 21 countries/regions
Part II of the 'Benchmarking' report provides:
- The complete set of data for the 65 questions that help define the 8 indicators of patient-group capability, and overall performance for patient groups comprising each of the 21 countries/regions studied.
- Rankings are supplied for each of the 65 questions, so that patient groups in each of the 21 countries/geographic areas can be compared with one another for capability as patient groups.
- Purchasers of Part II are also supplied with an accompanying full explanation of the methodology, including why each indicator was selected, as well as the overall results for each of the 65 questions for 2018, 2014, and 2012.
-End of press release-