The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Using satisfaction to measure the quality of palliative care: a review of the literature
Abstract
Background. The advent of clinical governance in British health policy has placed increased demands on health care providers and practitioners to ascertain the quality of their services. Traditional indicators of quality of health care, such as death or recovery rates, are not appropriate in palliative care. Thus, it is important to establish alternative approaches to measuring the quality of palliative care services and interventions. Aims. Satisfaction levels have been used widely in palliative care to assess quality. A literature review was conducted which aimed to explore the strengths and weaknesses of using satisfaction as an indicator of the quality of palliative care services. It also aimed to provide a solid basis upon which further work could be built. Methods. Five electronic databases were searched using key words and phrases and key authors. Hand searches were conducted of four journals that contributed significantly to the concept of satisfaction, and reference lists of reviewed papers were scrutinized. Relevant papers were reviewed, data were extracted and these data were thematically analysed. Findings. There are a number of important unresolved issues in the literature with regard to using satisfaction as an indicator of the quality of palliative care services. First, few alternatives to satisfaction are available. Secondly, satisfaction is under‐theorized and no widely accepted definition exists. Thirdly, there are methodological inconsistencies across studies. It is important to take into account these findings when planning and implementing change following service evaluation using satisfaction as a measure. Conclusions. Relying on findings of satisfaction surveys to determine clinical and policy amendments in palliative care may not result in improvements in overall quality of care. Using satisfaction as a method of assessing the quality of health care services is particularly problematic and requires further investigation in both practical and conceptual terms.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Tomkins, B., Siyambalapitiya, S., & Worrall, L. (2013) · Aphasiology · doi:10.1080/02687038.2013.811211 · Cited by 72
Foley, G., Timonen, V., & Hardiman, O. (2012) · American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine® · doi:10.1177/1049909111423774 · Cited by 21
Metadata
- Authors
- Aspinal, F., Addington‐Hall, J., Hughes, R., & Higginson, I. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Advanced Nursing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-05
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 324-339
- ISSN
- 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2648
- OpenAlex
- W2007085395
- Cited by
- 171
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Using satisfaction to measure the quality of palliative care: a review of the literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02624.x
- The paper
- Aspinal, F., Addington‐Hall, J., Hughes, R., & Higginson, I. J. (2003). Using satisfaction to measure the quality of palliative care: a review of the literature. Journal of Advanced Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02624.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.