Social Indicators Research

, Volume 105, Issue 2, pp 255–271 | Cite as

Comparability of Health Care Responsiveness in Europe

  • Nicolas SirvenEmail author
  • Brigitte Santos-Eggimann
  • Jacques Spagnoli


The aim of this paper is to measure and to correct for the potential incomparability of responses to the SHARE survey on health care responsiveness. A parametric approach based on the use of anchoring vignettes is applied to cross-sectional data (2006–2007) in eleven European countries. More than 7,000 respondents aged 50 years old and over were asked to assess the quality of health care responsiveness in three domains: waiting time for medical treatment, quality of the conditions in visited health facilities, and communication and involvement in decisions about the treatment. Our results suggest that there is reporting heterogeneity across countries and across individuals within countries, and the degree of heterogeneity varies with the health care domain. Although leading countries in terms of health care responsiveness remain among the most successful even after correction for reporting heterogeneity, one may acknowledge many shifts in the ranking of the other countries.


Anchoring vignettes Cross-country comparison Chopit model 



This study is part of the COMPARE project. “This paper uses data from SHARE release 2.3.0, as of November 13th 2009. SHARE data collection in 2004-2007 was primarily funded by the European Commission through its 5th and 6th framework programmes (project numbers QLK6-CT-2001-00360; RII-CT-2006-062193; CIT5-CT-2005-028857). Additional funding by the US National Institute on Aging (grant numbers U01 AG09740-13S2; P01 AG005842; P01 AG08291; P30 AG12815; Y1-AG-4553-01; OGHA 04-064; R21 AG025169) as well as by various national sources is gratefully acknowledged (see for a full list of funding institutions).” The authors would like to thank Arthur van Soest, Theresa Bago d’Uva, Silvana Robone, Hendrick Jürges, Renske Kok, and two anonymous referees for useful comments and suggestions on previous versions of this paper.


  1. Bago d’Uva, T. & Van Doorslaer E. (2009). Slipping Anchor? Testing the Vignettes Approach to Identification and Correction of Reporting Heterogeneity. Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Paper 09/30.Google Scholar
  2. Björnberg, A., & Uhlir, M. (2008). Euro Health Consumer Index 2008 Report. Winnipeg: Health Consumer Powerhouse.Google Scholar
  3. Börsch-Supan, A., & Jürges, H. (Eds.). (2005). The survey of health, ageing, and retirement in Europe-met hodology. Germany: Manheim Research Institute for the Economics of Ageing.Google Scholar
  4. Coulter, A., & Jenkinson, C. (2005). European patients’ views on the responsiveness of health systems and health care providers. European Journal of Public Health, 15, 355–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dewey, M. E., & Prince, M. J. (2005). Mental health. In A. Boersch-Supan (Ed.), Health, ageing and retirement in Europe: First results from SHARE (pp. 108–117). Manheim: Research Institute for the Economics of Ageing.Google Scholar
  6. Hausdorf, K., et al. (2008). Rating access to health care: are there differences according to geographical region? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 32, 246–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jones, A. M., Rice, N., Bago d’Uva, T., & Balia, S. (2007). Applied Health Economics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Jürges, H. (2007). True health differences versuss response style: Exploring cross-country differences in self-reported health. Health Economics, 16, 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kapteyn, A., Smith, J. P., & van Soest, A. (2007). Vignettes and self-reports of work disability in the United States and The Netherlands. American Economic Review, 97, 461–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. King, G., Murray, C., Salomon, J., & Tandon, A. (2004). Enhancing the validity and crosscultural comparability of measurement in survey research. American Political Science Review, 98(1), 567–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kristensen, N., & Johanson, E. (2008). New evidence on cross-country differences in job satisfaction using anchoring vignettes. Labour Economics, 15(1), 96–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mojon-Azzi, S. M., & Mojon, D. S. (2007). Waiting times for cataract surgery in ten European countries: An analysis using data from the SHARE survey. The British Journal of Ophthalmology, 91(3), 282–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Murray, C. J. L., & Frenk, J. (2000). A framework for assessing the performance of health systems. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 78, 717–731.Google Scholar
  14. Or, Z., et al. (2010). Are health problems systemic? Politics of access and choice under Beveridge and Bismarck systems. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 5, 269–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Prince, M. J., et al. (1999). Development of the Euro-d scale–a European Union initiative to compare symptoms of depression in 14 European centres. British Journal of Psychiatry, 174, 330–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rabe-Hesketh, S., Skrondal, A., & Pickles, A. (2002). Reliable estimation of generalized linear mixed models using adaptive quadrature. The Stata Journal, 2, 1–21.Google Scholar
  17. Rice N., Robone S. and Smith P.C. (2008). The measurement and comparison of health system responsiveness. University of York (G.B.), HEDG Working Paper 08/05, mimeo.Google Scholar
  18. Rice N., Robone S. and Smith P.C. (2009).Vignettes and health systems responsiveness in cross-country comparative analyses. University of York (G.B.), HEDG Working Paper 09/29.Google Scholar
  19. Rice, N., Robone, S., & Smith, P. C. (2010). International comparison of public sector performance: The use of anchoring vignettes to adjust self-reported data. Evaluation, 16(1), 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Santos-Eggimann, B., Junod, J., & Cornaz, S. (2005). Health services utilization in older Europeans. In A. Börsch-Supan (Ed.), Health, ageing and retirement in Europe. First results from the survey of health, ageing and retirement in Europe (pp. 133–140). Mannheim: Mannheim Resaerch Institute for the Economics of aging (MEA).Google Scholar
  21. Schoen, C., et al. (2004). Primary care and health system performance: Adults’ experiences in five countries. Health Affairs, W4, 487–503.Google Scholar
  22. StataCorp. (2005). Stata Statistical Software: Release 9.2. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.Google Scholar
  23. van Soest, A. (2008). Enhancing international comparability using anchoring vignettes. In A. Börsch-Supan, et al. (Eds.), First results from the survey of health, ageing and retirement in Europe (2004–2007) (pp. 353–357). Germany: Mannheim Research Institute for the Economics of Aging (MEA).Google Scholar
  24. World Health Organization (2000). The World health Report 2000. Health systems: Improving performance. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
  25. World Health Organization (2001). Background paper for the technical consultation on responsiveness concepts and measurement. Geneva: WHO pp. 13–14 September 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicolas Sirven
    • 1
    Email author
  • Brigitte Santos-Eggimann
    • 2
  • Jacques Spagnoli
    • 2
  1. 1.IRDES Institute for Research and Information on Health EconomicsParisFrance
  2. 2.IUMSP Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine University of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations