The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Response rate in patient satisfaction research: an analysis of 210 published studies
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.
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
Bays, H. E., Chapman, R. H., Grandy, S., & the SHIELD Investigators’ Group (2007) · International Journal of Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2007.01336.x · Cited by 510
Snape, D., Kirkham, J., Preston, J., Popay, J., Britten, N., Collins, M., Froggatt, K., Gibson, A., Lobban, F., Wyatt, K., et al. (2014) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004217 · Cited by 88
Lis, C. G., Rodeghier, M., Grutsch, J. F., & Gupta, D. (2009) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-9-190 · Cited by 86
Palcu, P., Munce, S., Jaglal, S. B., Allin, S., Chishtie, J. A., Silverstein, A., & Kim, S. (2020) · Osteoporosis International · doi:10.1007/s00198-019-05182-5 · Cited by 49
Khoong, E. C., Rivadeneira, N. A., Hiatt, R. A., & Sarkar, U. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/16951 · Cited by 44
Health Information–seeking Behaviors and Preferences of a Diverse, Multilingual Urban Cohort
Khoong, E. C., Le, G. M., Hoskote, M., Rivadeneira, N. A., Hiatt, R. A., & Sarkar, U. (2019) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/mlr.0000000000001050 · Cited by 39
Voogdt-Pruis, H. R., Van Ree, J. W., Gorgels, A. P. M., & Beusmans, G. H. M. I. (2011) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.11.008 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Authors
- Sitzia, J., & Wood, N.
- Venue
- International Journal for Quality in Health Care
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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.