Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 377

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Response rate in patient satisfaction research: an analysis of 210 published studies

Sitzia, J, Wood, N·1998·International Journal for Quality in Health Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To examine the quality of response rate reporting and to identify methodological factors influencing response rates in published patient satisfaction studies. DESIGN: Examination and analysis of 210 studies from 200 papers published in 1994 in 141 different health journals. Papers were located in the following databases: British Nursing Index, CINAHL, EMBASE, MedLine, Popline, and PsycLIT. MAIN MEASURES: Reported and calculated response rates, collection and recruitment procedures of published studies, and type of instruments used for data collection. RESULTS: Forty-eight per cent of studies reported a response rate. The mean response rate was 72.1%. There was no association between response rate and the type of instrument used for data collection. Studies which used a face-to-face approach to either subject recruitment (mean response rate, 76.7%) or data collection (mean response rate, 76.9%) were associated with significantly higher response rates than those in which subjects were recruited by mail (mean response rate, 66.5%) or data were collected by mail (mean response rate, 67%). Response rate was not related to questionnaire length. CONCLUSION: Patient satisfaction studies generally show poor awareness of the importance of methodological issues relevant to response rate. Far more attention to this aspect is needed if findings in this field are to be accepted as valid and useful.

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/intqhc/10.4.311

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

Metadata

Authors
Sitzia, J., & Wood, N.
Venue
International Journal for Quality in Health Care
Published
1998-08-01
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
311-317
ISSN
  • 1353-4505 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3677
OpenAlex
W2099443809
Cited by
377
References
0
FWCI
22.98
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

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.