The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Methods For Measuring Patient Satisfaction With Specific Medical Encounters
Abstract
This paper presents the results of two studies that compared methods for measuring patient satisfaction with specific medical encounters. One form used six-point response scales ranging from "very satisfied" to "very dissatisfied" (S6 scale); the other used five-point scales ranging from "excellent" to "poor" (E5 scale). Forms were assigned randomly to outpatients in fee-for-service (N = 136) and prepaid systems of care (N = 363) and were compared in terms of response variability, reliability, and validity. In both studies, the E5 scales showed greater response variability and better predicted whether patients intended to return to the same doctor in the future, recommend the doctor to a friend, and comply with the medical regimen. Reliability was satisfactory and did not differ between methods. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for constructing visit-specific satisfaction rating scales.
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-Physician Racial Concordance and the Perceived Quality and Use of Health Care
Saha, S., Komaromy, M., Koepsell, T. D., & Bindman, A. B. (1999) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.159.9.997 · Cited by 1,125
Veloski, J., Boex, J. R., Grasberger, M. J., Evans, A., & Wolfson, D. B. (2006) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/01421590600622665 · Cited by 500
Counsell, S. R., Holder, C. M., Liebenauer, L. L., Palmer, R. M., Fortinsky, R. H., Kresevic, D. M., Quinn, L. M., Allen, K. R., Covinsky, K. E., & Landefeld, C. S. (2000) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb03866.x · Cited by 406
Doctor–patient communication and the quality of care
Bensing, J. (1991) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/0277-9536(91)90047-g · Cited by 407
Bowling, A., Rowe, G., Lambert, N., Waddington, M., Mahtani, K., Kenten, C., Howe, A., & Francis, S. (2012) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta16300 · Cited by 326
Reliability and Validity of Assessing User Satisfaction With Web-Based Health Interventions
Boß, L., Lehr, D., Reis, D., Vis, C., Riper, H., Berking, M., & Ebert, D. D. (2016) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.5952 · Cited by 251
“Nevertheless, some studies suggest that modifying the response choice pattern from a 4-point format to a 5-point format with three positive choices and two negative choices can increase the variability of satisfaction scores [62-64].”
BackgroundSeverity and impact of pain after day-surgery
Beauregard, L., Pomp, A., & Choinière, M. (1998) · Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1007/bf03012019 · Cited by 267
Antic, N. A., Buchan, C., Esterman, A., Hensley, M., Naughton, M. T., Rowland, S., Williamson, B., Windler, S., Eckermann, S., & McEvoy, R. D. (2009) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/rccm.200810-1558oc · Cited by 227
The structure of patient satisfaction with outpatient medical care
Marshall, G. N., Hays, R. D., Sherbourne, C. D., & Wells, K. B. (1993) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.5.4.477 · Cited by 145
Self-citationNyssen, O. P., Taylor, S. J., Wong, G., Steed, E., Bourke, L., Lord, J., Ross, C. A., Hayman, S., Field, V., Higgins, A., et al. (2016) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta20270 · Cited by 115
Aragonès, E., Rambla, C., López-Cortacans, G., Tomé-Pires, C., Sánchez-Rodríguez, E., Caballero, A., & Miró, J. (2019) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2019.04.004 · Cited by 50
Katz, M. H. G., Slack, R., Bruno, M., McMillan, J., Fleming, J. B., Lee, J. E., Bednarski, B., Papadopoulos, J., & Matin, S. F. (2016) · Journal of Surgical Research · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2015.12.054 · Cited by 27
Villareal, D. T. (2006) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.166.22.2502 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- WARE, J. E., & HAYS, R. D.
- Venue
- Medical Care
- Published
- 1988-04
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 393-402
- ISSN
- 0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2020922777
- Cited by
- 580
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 17.93
- 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.
