Examination of Healthcare Quality Indicators with a Two-Stage Panel Data Analysis: The Case of Cancer Care

Yasin Aras

doi:10.31067/acusaglik.1488774

EN

Examination of Healthcare Quality Indicators with a Two-Stage Panel Data Analysis: The Case of Cancer Care

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine the quality of care for cancer patients using survival rates for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and stomach cancers. Methods: The study population comprised OECD countries. Survival rates from breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and stomach cancers, alcohol use, smoking, physical inactivity, and obesity rates, age, and income were selected as research data. A two-stage panel data analysis was performed. In the first stage, efficiency scores were found to be an indicator of the quality of cancer care through data envelopment analysis. In the second stage, the factors affecting efficiency were determined by panel tobit regression analysis. Results: In the first stage, Australia, Canada, Finland, Iceland, Israel, Israel, Korea, the Slovak Republic and Turkey were found to be efficient in all years. In the second stage, it was found that alcohol consumption, smoking, and inactivity statistically decreased cancer activity (p<0,05). Conclusion: To reduce the negative impact of smoking, alcohol consumption, and inactivity on the quality of cancer care, it is important to integrate smoking cessation programs into cancer treatment plans, to offer counseling and support to help patients reduce or stop drinking, and to encourage and facilitate regular physical activity for cancer patients.

Keywords

References

1. OECD. Health at a glance 2021: Cancer incidence and mortality. OECD Publications, Paris, 2021.
2. Hess LM, Pohl G. Perspectives of quality care in cancer treatment: A review of the literature. American Health & Drug Benefits, 2013; 6(6): 321.
3. Kruk ME, Gage AD, Arsenault C, Jordan K, Leslie HH, Roder-DeWan S, ... Pate M. (2018). High-quality health systems in the Sustainable Development Goals era: Time for a revolution. The Lancet Global Health, 2018; 6(11): e1196-e1252.
4. IOM (Institute of Medicine). Delivering high-quality cancer care: Charting a new course for a system in crisis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2013.
5. Erdal GŞ, Balcıoğlu SSK, Namlı MN. Distress tolerance in patients with metastatic and non-metastatic breast cancer: A single-center experience. Acıbadem Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 2023; 14(3): 409-414.
6. Wild C, Patera N. Measuring quality in cancer care: Overview of initiatives in selected countries. European Journal of Cancer Care, 2013; 22(6): 773-781.
7. Das S, Dey MK, Devireddy R, Gartia MR. Biomarkers in cancer detection, diagnosis, and prognosis. Sensors, 2023; 24(1): 37.
8. Curry, SJ, Byers T, Hewitt M. Lifestyle behaviors contributing to the burden of cancer. Fulfilling the Potential of Cancer Prevention and Early Detection, 2003.

9. Friedenreich CM, Ryder‐Burbidge C, McNeil J. Physical activity, obesity and sedentary behavior in cancer etiology: epidemiologic evidence and biologic mechanisms. Molecular Oncology, 2021; 15(3): 790-800.
10. Afshar N, English DR, Milne RL. (2021). Factors explaining socio-economic inequalities in cancer survival: a systematic review. Cancer Control, 2021; 28: 10732748211011956.
11. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 1978; 2(6): 429-444.
12. Al-Mezeini NK, Oukil A, Al-Ismaili AM. Investigating the efficiency of greenhouse production in Oman: A two-stage approach based on data envelopment analysis and double bootstrapping. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020; 247: 1-9.
13. Shabanpour H, Fathi A, Yousefi S, et al. Ranking sustainable suppliers using congestion approach of data envelopment analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019; 240: 118190.
14. Meng XL, Shi FG. An extended DEA with more general fuzzy data based upon the centroid formula. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 2017; 33(1): 457-465.
15. Osgood DW, Finken LL, McMorris BJ. Analyzing multiple-item measures of crime and deviance II: Tobit regression analysis of transformed scores. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2002; 18(4): 319-347.
16. Ozcan YA. Health care benchmarking and performance evaluation. Springer, 2008.
17. Demirci Ş, Yetim B, Konca M. OECD ülkelerinde uzun dönemli bakım hizmetlerinin etkinliğinin değerlendirilmesi. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2019; 8(1): 305-313.
18. Bagnardi V, Blangiardo M, La Vecchia C, et al. Alcohol consumption and the risk of cancer: A meta-analysis. Alcohol Research & Health, 2001; 25(4): 263.
19. Osna NA, Donohue TM Jr, Kharbanda KK. Alcoholic liver disease: Pathogenesis and current management. Alcohol Research, 2017; 38(2): 147-161.
20. Meadows GG, Zhang H. Effects of alcohol on tumor growth, metastasis, immune response, and host survival. Alcohol Research, 2015; 37(2): 311-322.
21. Schwartz N, Nishri D, Cheong SC, et al. Is there an association between trends in alcohol consumption and cancer mortality? Findings from a multicountry analysis. European Journal of Cancer Prevention, 2019; 28(1): 45-53.
22. Anderson P, O'Donnell A, Kaner E. Managing alcohol use disorder in primary health care. Current Psychiatry Reports, 2017; 19(11): 79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-017-0837-z.
23. National Cancer Institute. Harms of Cigarette Smoking and Health Benefits of Quitting. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/tobacco/cessation-fact-sheet. Accessed May 17, 2024.
24. Peppone LJ, Mustian KM, Morrow GR, et al. The effect of cigarette smoking on cancer treatment-related side effects. Oncologist, 2011; 16(12): 1784-1792. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0169.
25. Jassem J. Tobacco smoking after diagnosis of cancer: Clinical aspects. Translational Lung Cancer Research, 2019; 8(Suppl 1): S50.
26. Selya A, Johnson EL, Weber TL, et al. Smoking is associated with a higher risk of unplanned medical visits among adult patients with diabetes, using retrospective electronic medical record data from 2014 to 2016. BMC Health Services Research, 2020; 20(1): 383. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05277-4.
27. Lugo D, Pulido AL, Mihos CG, et al. The effects of physical activity on cancer prevention, treatment and prognosis: A review of the literature. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 2019; 44: 9-13.
28. Zhao C, Hu W, Xu Y, et al. Current landscape: The mechanism and therapeutic impact of obesity for breast cancer. Frontiers in Oncology, 2021; 11: 704893. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.704893.
29. Zyzniewska-Banaszak E, Kucharska-Mazur J, Mazur A. Physiotherapy and physical activity as factors improving the psychological state of patients with cancer. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 2021; 12: 772694. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.772694.
30. Franco-García JM, Castillo-Paredes A, Rodríguez-Redondo Y, et al. Greater physical activity levels are associated with lower prevalence of tumors and risk of cancer in Spanish population: A cross-sectional study. Heliyon, 2024; 10(7): e29191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29191.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Health Policy, Health Care Administration

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Yasin Aras ^*
0000-0002-5171-7779
Türkiye

Early Pub Date

December 10, 2024

Publication Date

January 1, 2025

Submission Date

May 23, 2024

Acceptance Date

August 7, 2024

Published in Issue

Year 2025 Volume: 16 Number: 1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.31067/acusaglik.1488774

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA77SU96EZ

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Aras, Y. (2025). Examination of Healthcare Quality Indicators with a Two-Stage Panel Data Analysis: The Case of Cancer Care. Acıbadem Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 16(1), 142-152. https://doi.org/10.31067/acusaglik.1488774

AMA

1.Aras Y. Examination of Healthcare Quality Indicators with a Two-Stage Panel Data Analysis: The Case of Cancer Care. Acibadem Univ Saglik Bilim Derg. 2025;16(1):142-152. doi:10.31067/acusaglik.1488774

Chicago

Aras, Yasin. 2025. “Examination of Healthcare Quality Indicators With a Two-Stage Panel Data Analysis: The Case of Cancer Care”. Acıbadem Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 16 (1): 142-52. https://doi.org/10.31067/acusaglik.1488774.

EndNote

Aras Y (January 1, 2025) Examination of Healthcare Quality Indicators with a Two-Stage Panel Data Analysis: The Case of Cancer Care. Acıbadem Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 16 1 142–152.

IEEE

[1]Y. Aras, “Examination of Healthcare Quality Indicators with a Two-Stage Panel Data Analysis: The Case of Cancer Care”, Acibadem Univ Saglik Bilim Derg, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 142–152, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.31067/acusaglik.1488774.

ISNAD

Aras, Yasin. “Examination of Healthcare Quality Indicators With a Two-Stage Panel Data Analysis: The Case of Cancer Care”. Acıbadem Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 16/1 (January 1, 2025): 142-152. https://doi.org/10.31067/acusaglik.1488774.

JAMA

1.Aras Y. Examination of Healthcare Quality Indicators with a Two-Stage Panel Data Analysis: The Case of Cancer Care. Acibadem Univ Saglik Bilim Derg. 2025;16:142–152.

MLA

Aras, Yasin. “Examination of Healthcare Quality Indicators With a Two-Stage Panel Data Analysis: The Case of Cancer Care”. Acıbadem Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, vol. 16, no. 1, Jan. 2025, pp. 142-5, doi:10.31067/acusaglik.1488774.

Vancouver

1.Yasin Aras. Examination of Healthcare Quality Indicators with a Two-Stage Panel Data Analysis: The Case of Cancer Care. Acibadem Univ Saglik Bilim Derg. 2025 Jan. 1;16(1):142-5. doi:10.31067/acusaglik.1488774