The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire: development and validation using data from in-patient surveys in five countries
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop and test a core set of questions to measure patients' experiences of in-patient care. Questions were selected from the bank of items developed for use in in-patient surveys undertaken by the Picker Institute for the purposes of assessing the quality of care. DESIGN: The data reported here come from surveys of patients who had attended acute care hospitals in five countries: the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, and the USA. Questionnaires were mailed to patients' homes within 1 month of discharge, either to all patients, or to a random sample, discharged during a specified period. SAMPLE: A total of 62 925 questionnaires were returned, with response rates of 65% (UK), 74% (Germany), 63% (Sweden), 52% (Switzerland), and 46% (USA). RESULTS: Fifteen items were selected from the bank of questions included in the Picker in-patient questionnaires. These items have a high degree of face validity and when summed to an index they show a high degree of construct validity and internal reliability consistency. DISCUSSION: Fifteen items derived from the longer form Picker in-patient survey have been found to provide a meaningful picture of patient experiences of health care, and constitute the 15-item Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire. These questions comprise a core set that should be measured in all in-patient facility surveys. The Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire represents a step forward in the measurement of patient experience as it provides a core set of questions around which further optional modules may be added. Scores are easy to interpret and actionable. CONCLUSION: This small set of questions could be incorporated into in-patient surveys in different settings, enabling the comparison of hospital performance and the establishment of national or international benchmarks.
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
Patient Satisfaction Survey as a Tool Towards Quality Improvement
Al-Abri, R., & Al-Balushi, A. (2014) · Oman Medical Journal · doi:10.5001/omj.2014.02 · Cited by 699
Service quality, consumer satisfaction and loyalty in hospitals: Thinking for the future
Meesala, A., & Paul, J. (2018) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.10.011 · Cited by 668
Instruments to measure patient experience of healthcare quality in hospitals: a systematic review
Beattie, M., Murphy, D. J., Atherton, I., & Lauder, W. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0089-0 · Cited by 438
Patient involvement in treatment decision-making: The case for a broader conceptual framework
Entwistle, V. A., & Watt, I. S. (2006) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2006.05.002 · Cited by 314
Mikocka‐Walus, A., Massuger, W., Knowles, S. R., Moore, G. T., Buckton, S., Connell, W., Pavli, P., Raven, L., & Andrews, J. M. (2020) · Internal Medicine Journal · doi:10.1111/imj.14683 · Cited by 36
Metadata
- Authors
- JENKINSON, C.
- Venue
- International Journal for Quality in Health Care
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2002-10-01
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 353-358
- ISSN
- 1353-4505 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3677
- OpenAlex
- W2080993458
- Cited by
- 659
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.70
- 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: The Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire: development and validation using data from in-patient surveys in five countries. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/intqhc/14.5.353
- The paper
- JENKINSON, C. (2002). The Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire: development and validation using data from in-patient surveys in five countries. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/14.5.353
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.