Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 487

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

Howie, J. G., Heaney, D. J., Maxwell, M., Walker, J. J.·1998·Family Practice

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/fampra/15.2.165

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 487

Metadata

Authors
Howie, J. G., Heaney, D. J., Maxwell, M., & Walker, J. J.
Venue
Family Practice
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.