The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Use of Patient Perceptions in the Evaluation of Health-Care Delivery Systems
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Patient perceptions are increasingly used to measure quality of care in a diversity of health-care delivery settings. The goals of this article are to review the current use of patient perceptions and to review what is known about the sensitivity of patient perceptions for discerning variations in care across delivery systems. METHODS: This article first provides a rationale for using patient perceptions to evaluate delivery systems and reviews proposed frameworks for measuring perceptions. It then reviews illustrative studies that have used patient perceptions to compare delivery systems or that have examined associations between patient perceptions and other health-care indicators. RESULTS: Although the results of these studies suggest some general relations between patient perceptions and characteristics of delivery systems, findings are often inconsistent across individual studies. These inconsistencies may be related to several potential methodological limitations, including failure to account for the impact of patient mix, ceiling effects of patient responses, nonresponse bias, differences in data collection methods and timing of surveys, use of proxy respondents, and differences in survey instruments. CONCLUSIONS: The discussion concludes with five conceptual challenges and recommendations for further research: (1) to establish the sensitivity of patient perceptions for discerning differences across delivery systems; (2) to establish relations between alternative frameworks for measuring patient perceptions; (3) to standardize the measurement of patient perceptions; (4) to define optimal ways of presenting patient perceptions data to users; and (5) to broaden the "patient" populations in which perceptions of care have been measured.
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
Cites
SERVQUAL: A multiple-Item Scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1988) · Zenodo · doi:10.5281/zenodo.14579729 · Cited by 21,118
Cited by
Detmar, S. B., Muller, M. J., Schornagel, J. H., Wever, L. D. V., & Aaronson, N. K. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.288.23.3027 · Cited by 1,011
Griffin, S. J. (2004) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.142 · Cited by 578
A Demonstration of the Impact of Response Bias on the Results of Patient Satisfaction Surveys
Mazor, K. M., Clauser, B. E., Field, T., Yood, R. A., & Gurwitz, J. H. (2002) · Health Services Research · doi:10.1111/1475-6773.11194 · Cited by 326
Degni, F., Suominen, S. B., El Ansari, W., Vehviläinen-Julkunen, K., & Essen, B. (2014) · Ethnicity & Health · doi:10.1080/13557858.2013.797567 · Cited by 45
Metadata
- Authors
- Rosenthal, G. E., & Shannon, S. E.
- Venue
- Medical Care
- Published
- 1997-11
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- Supplement
- Pages
- NS58-NS68
- ISSN
- 0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2319545630
- Cited by
- 210
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.42
- 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 Use of Patient Perceptions in the Evaluation of Health-Care Delivery Systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00005650-199711001-00007
- The paper
- Rosenthal, G. E., & Shannon, S. E. (1997). The Use of Patient Perceptions in the Evaluation of Health-Care Delivery Systems. Medical Care. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199711001-00007
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.