Cargando…

Application of Andersen’s behavioural model of health services use: a scoping review with a focus on qualitative health services research

INTRODUCTION: Qualitative methods have become integral in health services research, and Andersen’s behavioural model of health services use (BMHSU) is one of the most commonly employed models of health service utilisation. The model focuses on three core factors to explain healthcare utilisation: pr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lederle, Mareike, Tempes, Jana, Bitzer, Eva M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8103375/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33952550
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045018
_version_ 1783689299630227456
author Lederle, Mareike
Tempes, Jana
Bitzer, Eva M
author_facet Lederle, Mareike
Tempes, Jana
Bitzer, Eva M
author_sort Lederle, Mareike
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Qualitative methods have become integral in health services research, and Andersen’s behavioural model of health services use (BMHSU) is one of the most commonly employed models of health service utilisation. The model focuses on three core factors to explain healthcare utilisation: predisposing, enabling and need factors. A recent overview of the application of the BMHSU is lacking, particularly regarding its application in qualitative research. Therefore, we provide (1) a descriptive overview of the application of the BMHSU in health services research in general and (2) a qualitative synthesis on the (un)suitability of the model in qualitative health services research. METHODS: We searched five databases from March to April 2019, and in April 2020. For inclusion, each study had to focus on individuals ≥18 years of age and to cite the BMHSU, a modified version of the model, or the three core factors that constitute the model, regardless of study design, or publication type. We used MS Excel to perform descriptive statistics, and applied MAXQDA 2020 as part of a qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: From a total of 6319 results, we identified 1879 publications dealing with the BMSHU. The main methodological approach was quantitative (89%). More than half of the studies are based on the BMHSU from 1995. 77 studies employed a qualitative design, the BMHSU was applied to justify the theoretical background (62%), structure the data collection (40%) and perform data coding (78%). Various publications highlight the usefulness of the BMHSU for qualitative data, while others criticise the model for several reasons (eg, its lack of cultural or psychosocial factors). CONCLUSIONS: The application of different and older models of healthcare utilisation hinders comparative health services research. Future research should consider quantitative or qualitative study designs and account for the most current and comprehensive model of the BMHSU.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8103375
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81033752021-05-24 Application of Andersen’s behavioural model of health services use: a scoping review with a focus on qualitative health services research Lederle, Mareike Tempes, Jana Bitzer, Eva M BMJ Open Public Health INTRODUCTION: Qualitative methods have become integral in health services research, and Andersen’s behavioural model of health services use (BMHSU) is one of the most commonly employed models of health service utilisation. The model focuses on three core factors to explain healthcare utilisation: predisposing, enabling and need factors. A recent overview of the application of the BMHSU is lacking, particularly regarding its application in qualitative research. Therefore, we provide (1) a descriptive overview of the application of the BMHSU in health services research in general and (2) a qualitative synthesis on the (un)suitability of the model in qualitative health services research. METHODS: We searched five databases from March to April 2019, and in April 2020. For inclusion, each study had to focus on individuals ≥18 years of age and to cite the BMHSU, a modified version of the model, or the three core factors that constitute the model, regardless of study design, or publication type. We used MS Excel to perform descriptive statistics, and applied MAXQDA 2020 as part of a qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: From a total of 6319 results, we identified 1879 publications dealing with the BMSHU. The main methodological approach was quantitative (89%). More than half of the studies are based on the BMHSU from 1995. 77 studies employed a qualitative design, the BMHSU was applied to justify the theoretical background (62%), structure the data collection (40%) and perform data coding (78%). Various publications highlight the usefulness of the BMHSU for qualitative data, while others criticise the model for several reasons (eg, its lack of cultural or psychosocial factors). CONCLUSIONS: The application of different and older models of healthcare utilisation hinders comparative health services research. Future research should consider quantitative or qualitative study designs and account for the most current and comprehensive model of the BMHSU. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-05-05 /pmc/articles/PMC8103375/ /pubmed/33952550 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045018 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Public Health
Lederle, Mareike
Tempes, Jana
Bitzer, Eva M
Application of Andersen’s behavioural model of health services use: a scoping review with a focus on qualitative health services research
title Application of Andersen’s behavioural model of health services use: a scoping review with a focus on qualitative health services research
title_full Application of Andersen’s behavioural model of health services use: a scoping review with a focus on qualitative health services research
title_fullStr Application of Andersen’s behavioural model of health services use: a scoping review with a focus on qualitative health services research
title_full_unstemmed Application of Andersen’s behavioural model of health services use: a scoping review with a focus on qualitative health services research
title_short Application of Andersen’s behavioural model of health services use: a scoping review with a focus on qualitative health services research
title_sort application of andersen’s behavioural model of health services use: a scoping review with a focus on qualitative health services research
topic Public Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8103375/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33952550
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045018
work_keys_str_mv AT lederlemareike applicationofandersensbehaviouralmodelofhealthservicesuseascopingreviewwithafocusonqualitativehealthservicesresearch
AT tempesjana applicationofandersensbehaviouralmodelofhealthservicesuseascopingreviewwithafocusonqualitativehealthservicesresearch
AT bitzerevam applicationofandersensbehaviouralmodelofhealthservicesuseascopingreviewwithafocusonqualitativehealthservicesresearch