Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: Existing health systems all over the world are different due to the different combinations of components that can be considered for their establishment. The ranking of health systems has been a focal points for many years especially the issue of performance. In 2000 the World Health Organization (WHO) performed a ranking to compare the Performance of the health system of the member countries. Since then other health system rankings have been performed and it became an issue of public discussion. A point of contention regarding these rankings is the methodology employed by each of them, since no gold standard exists. Therefore, this review focuses on evaluating the methodologies of each existing health system performance ranking to assess their reproducibility and transparency. METHODS: A search was conducted to identify existing health system rankings, and a questionnaire was developed for the comparison of the methodologies based on the following indicators: (1) General information, (2) Statistical methods, (3) Data (4) Indicators. Overall nine rankings were identified whereas six of them focused rather on the measurement of population health without any financial component and were therefore excluded. Finally, three health system rankings were selected for this review: "Health Systems: Improving Performance" by the WHO, "Mirror, Mirror on the wall: How the Performance of the US Health Care System Compares Internationally" by the Commonwealth Fund and "the Most efficient Health Care" by Bloomberg. RESULTS: After the completion of the comparison of the rankings by giving them scores according to the indicators, the ranking performed the WHO was considered the most complete regarding the ability of reproducibility and transparency of the methodology. CONCLUSIONS: This review and comparison could help in establishing consensus in the field of health system research. This may also help giving recommendations for future health rankings and evaluating the current gap in the literature.
Schütte et al. (Thu,) studied this question.