# data[].attributes.body
A pre-understanding we had from previous classes is that we cannot compare entire healthcare systems in countries that are very different. It seems that the Index outcomes for Nordic countries as mostly green and eastern Europe as red. It does not take into account the cultural and geographical differences between these regions and they may not prioritze the same things.

# data[].attributes.body
It is hard to tell because we do not know where the information is coming from, the intentionality behind pulling the statistics displayed, and whether there is standardization of data.

# data[].attributes.body
We can interpret this report as a baseline understanding of where certain countries rank in terms of providing healthcare, however, with the understanding that there are levels of critical analysis that were not done by the creators of this report- ie not taking into account the experiences of undocumented people/those who generally fall through the cracks of most healthcare systems.

# data[].attributes.body
As Priya mentioned, this is not a dissertation level report. However, this report can serve as a starting off point to access different sources regarding health indicators/outcomes in different countries across Europe.

# data[].attributes.body
This is used to compare countries to ultimately rank their health care systems. We can use it to establish an understanding of who might be "best." It can also show where a country may need to improve, as well as where it is doing well.

# data[].attributes.body
Our preunderstandings echo the need to think critically about the units of comparison/analysis chosen by the authors and the subjects of the comparison (eg are countries compared on the national level or are certain cities chosen as a model?)

# data[].attributes.body
Interpreting this report could be quite simple if taken literally, as we understand that countries with colors of yellow and red may need to improve on those specific categories. We don't think that you can actually draw valid conclusions from this and maybe interpreting it at such a literal level doesn't help. The data was taken from reports from different countries and so there is no real way to standardize this and compare them in a valid way. There is a lot up for interpretation.

# data[].attributes.body
We noticed that the data is outdated since the most recent Index is from 2018. In Estonia it said they were good on their wait time for psychiatric care but when we visited the GP she said it was normal to experience a 1.5 year wait for a psychiatrist. It would be interesting to see an updated Index and how it has changed since 2018.

# data[].attributes.body
The units compared are meaningful because each category can be argued as relevant towards public health. However, each category is important to each country; if a country is not doing well in one area on the EHCI, they are simply assigned a red box and the report does not get into the nuanced reasons why (cultural, geographical, historical differences between the countries).

# data[].attributes.body
Echoing Layna and Becca's point, we also did not appreciate the wording of the EHCI, especially in the Country Analysis of 35 countries section, like when they said "In 2016, Austria made a comeback into the “800 Club”, and is still in the same group of countries." This section reads almost like a sports game...

We were also wondering how much European countries care about how they rank in the EHCI.

# data[].attributes.body
The statistics do not offer any sense of the authors' initial hypothesis/purpose.

# data[].attributes.body
You can interpret the report by looking at a specific country and seeing if they meet the index of a particular healthcare measure or outcome. The sub-disciplines can tell governments which areas of their healthcare system need improvement. The color of the indicators illustrates which areas roughly need improvement. However, because the same indicators are used for all of the Euro countries, governments need to do a further analysis of the results of the Index to fully understand how to improve their system.

# data[].attributes.body
Our pre-understanding of how Denmark's overall health care system is one of the better ones internationally may have not led us to be as critical on some of their "green/very well" categories. We have a knowledge of some cultural differences and we kind of see that this isn't something that is/can be taken into account in this specific type of study.

# data[].attributes.body
This reading supported what we have spoken about in class: that when comparing healthcare systems some sectors can not fairly be compared between countries due to differing social, economic, and political systems that impact the healthcare system.

# data[].attributes.body
The purpose of this comparison was to evaluate how the European countries were doing from an established baseline. This can be used to evaluate different aspects to see how to improve certain countries healthcare, as well as see what other countries are specifically doing well.

# data[].attributes.body
The purpose of the comparison is to observe different aspects of the healthcare systems across Europe. It also serves (theoretically) to encourage lower-scoring countries to bolster program that they are doing not as well in.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a quantitative comparison, giving countries points (based on color categories) to rank how they perform on different indicators.

# data[].attributes.body
This report is a good starting point to find initial figures, but then you would have to go and do further research to contextualize the indicators.

# data[].attributes.body
The report aimed to create a standardized method in order to allow readers to compare country strengths and weaknesses at a glance

# data[].attributes.body
the purpose of the evaluation is to evaluate the progress and status of the healthcare system among country in europe across various sectors

# data[].attributes.body
It is a quantitative comparison, ranking the countries in different categories -- but shown visually. The countries are given points based on how well they perform on the units of comparison.

# data[].attributes.body
Quantitative study where each country is scored by a metric within each indicator. The study does not take into account differences in geographical need, but solely provides 3 categories for each country to fall into.

# data[].attributes.body
How are they quantifying their results? Where do the numbers that they're earning come from? What does the subweighted score mean? We think it would help to see some actual statistics rather than red, yellow, green. These don't mean much to us.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't like the writing style of the report, which portrays the countries as competitors. ie: "Switzerland finally taking the top position in spite of a minor loss of 5 points, taking the
Gold at 893 points!"

# data[].attributes.body
This is a variation finding, meaning the comparison is aiming to find variations among different aspects of each healthcare system

# data[].attributes.body
One indicator was about "Right to a second opinion." In the Denmark category, it said that this is very good, which is the opposite of what we heard from the GP in Horsens. Where are they getting this data from?!

# data[].attributes.body
What do the bombs mean??