Cited by 117Patient Satisfaction in HealthcarePsychiatric care and mental health servicesMental Health and Patient Involvement

Scales for assessing patient satisfaction with mental health care: A systematic review

Miglietta, Elisabetta, Belessiotis-Richards, Clara, Ruggeri, Mirella, Priebe, Stefan·2018·Journal of Psychiatric Research

Abstract

Background Patient satisfaction with mental health care has become an important construct in research and routine care. Both as a process measure and as an outcome criterion in its own right, it needs to be assessed with appropriate scales.Purpose To provide a review of scales for assessing patient satisfaction in different settings, their characteristics and the content of care that they cover.Method A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to identify studies that used a scale to assess patient satisfaction with care in mental health services. Peer reviewed articles were screened by two independent reviewers and included when they met predetermined criteria. Data on the characteristics of scales found in at least two studies were extracted and a qualitative analysis was performed to identify the contents of included scales.Results Twenty-eight scales were identified. They vary substantially in terms of structure, length, focus and quality. The qualitative analyses identified a total of 19 contents of care that were covered in the scales. The most consistent contents across scales were overall satisfaction, followed by relationship with staff and staff skills.Discussion A wide range of scales have been used to assess patient satisfaction with mental health care in different settings. Whilst some scales have been frequently used, there is no consensus on a gold standard one. The choice of the most appropriate scale depends on the aim of the assessment, the setting, the content that should be covered, and the time available for the assessment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2018.02.014

Cites

90 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Miglietta, E., Belessiotis-Richards, C., Ruggeri, M., & Priebe, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Verona (IT)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Miglietta, Elisabetta
Venue
Journal of Psychiatric Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-05
Volume
100
Pages
33-46
ISSN
0022-3956 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2791610108
Cited by
117
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 10
FWCI
1.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychiatric Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
patient satisfaction, mental health services, satisfaction scale, scale characteristics, staff-patient relationship, employee skills, outcome measures
MeSH terms
Humans, Mental Health Services, Psychometrics, Patient Satisfaction, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review