The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A comparison of a Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) against two established satisfaction scales as an outcome measure of primary care consultations
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare a new primary care outcome measure-the Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI)-against two established satisfaction measures [the Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale (MISS) and the Consultation Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ)]. Specifically, we sought (i) to test whether enablement and satisfaction are related or separate concepts; and (ii) to assess whether the internal consistency of the PEI might be enhanced by the inclusion of items from the satisfaction instruments. METHODS: Questionnaire forms containing the three instruments in a variety of combinations were distributed to a total of 818 patients attending for routine surgery consultations in three urban general practices of varying socio-economic mix. The main outcome measures were: scores on the PEI; scores on the CSQ, the MISS and their individual components; rank correlations between scores on the PEI and scores on the CSQ, the MISS and their component subscales; and Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the PEI. RESULTS: Overall mean scores, expressed as percentages of maximum scores attainable, were 44.1% for the PEI, 76.9% for the CSQ and 77.6% for the MISS. Rank correlations between PEI scores and scores for the complete CSQ and MISS instruments were 0.48 (P < 0.01) and 0.47 (P < 0.01), respectively. Correlations of PEI scores with individual component scores on the CSQ were generally lower and ranged from 0.14 to 0.53; correlations of PEI scored with MISS component scores were also generally lower and ranged from 0.21 to 0.53. Internal consistency of the PEI items (assessed by Cronbach's alpha coefficient) was lowered when items from the CSQ or MISS were added. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that 'enablement' is a primary care outcome measure which is related to but is different from general satisfaction.
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
Selecting, designing, and developing your questionnaire
Boynton, P. M., & Greenhalgh, T. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7451.1312 · Cited by 1,083
Mercer, S. W. (2004) · Family Practice · doi:10.1093/fampra/cmh621 · Cited by 943
Patient-centred consultations and outcomes in primary care: a review of the literature
Mead, N., & Bower, P. (2002) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/s0738-3991(02)00099-x · Cited by 613
Personalised care planning for adults with chronic or long-term health conditions
Coulter, A., Entwistle, V. A., Eccles, A., Ryan, S., Shepperd, S., & Perera, R. (2015) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010523.pub2 · Cited by 592
Defining and Measuring the Patient-Centered Medical Home
Stange, K. C., Nutting, P. A., Miller, W. L., Jaén, C. R., Crabtree, B. F., Flocke, S. A., & Gill, J. M. (2010) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1291-3 · Cited by 516
Metadata
- Authors
- Howie, J. G., Heaney, D. J., Maxwell, M., & Walker, J. J.
- Venue
- Family Practice
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1998-04-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 165-171
- ISSN
- 0263-2136 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2229
- OpenAlex
- W2074985123
- Cited by
- 487
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.92
- 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: A comparison of a Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) against two established satisfaction scales as an outcome measure of primary care consultations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/fampra/15.2.165
- The paper
- Howie, J. G., Heaney, D. J., Maxwell, M., & Walker, J. J. (1998). A comparison of a Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) against two established satisfaction scales as an outcome measure of primary care consultations. Family Practice. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/15.2.165
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.