How to Measure Client Satisfaction With Stop Smoking Services: A Pilot Project in the UK National Health Service
Abstract
This pilot study aimed to develop a tool and methodology for measuring client satisfaction in UK National Health (NHS) Stop Smoking Services (SSS). A brief postcard questionnaire (measuring overall satisfaction with the service, willingness to recommend the service to others and smoking status) and a complete questionnaire (with 20 additional items measuring satisfaction with specific elements of the service) were developed. An NHS SSS mailed the postcard to 298 clients who had set a quit date in the previous quarter, they mailed the complete questionnaire to a subsample of 99 clients. Overall 34% (100/298) of those surveyed responded: 30% (90/298) for the card and 25% (25/99) for the questionnaire (15 people responded to both). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were found to be acceptable for both the overall service satisfaction item (ICC value = .43, p = .05) and the item regarding recommending the service to others (ICC-value = .83, p < .001). Hence the tool had reliability and at least face validity and the survey methodology proved practicable. The small modifications made to service delivery and the need for future research are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In our analysis we did not find that levels of well-being changed significantly over time, unlike a previous systematic review.
“In our analysis we did not find that levels of well-being changed significantly over time, unlike a previous systematic review.50”
From Evaluating Long-term Outcomes of NHS Stop Smoking Services (ELONS): a prospective cohort study (2015) · cites this paper as [50]
Cites
Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M. D., & Roos, I. (2005) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.2005.69.4.210 · Cited by 1,576 · see citing works
West, R., & Brown, J. (2013) · doi:10.1002/9781118484890 · Cited by 816 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Evaluating Long-term Outcomes of NHS Stop Smoking Services (ELONS): a prospective cohort study
Dobbie, F., Hiscock, R., Leonardi-Bee, J., Murray, S., Shahab, L., Aveyard, P., Coleman, T., McEwen, A., McRobbie, H., Purves, R., et al. (2015) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta19950 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- May, S., McEwen, A., Arnoldi, H., Bauld, L., Ferguson, J., & Stead, M.
- Affiliations
- Cancer Research UK (GB)
- Bath and North East Somerset Council (GB)
- University of Bath (GB)
- University of Stirling (GB)
- Corresponding author
- McEwen, Andy
- Venue
- Journal of Smoking Cessation
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2009-05-01
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 52-58
- ISSN
- 0965-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1834-2612
- OpenAlex
- W2112897944
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of Smoking Cessation (publishedVersion)
- Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/G007489/1)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
- Keywords
- client satisfaction, smoking cessation services, smoking cessation, questionnaire development, willingness to recommend, intraclass correlation coefficient, reliability statistics, face validity, National Health Service
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
