CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 326Patient Satisfaction in HealthcarePatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareHealth Education and Validation

The measurement of patients’ expectations for health care: a review and psychometric testing of a measure of patients’ expectations.

Open access
Bowling, A, Rowe, G, Lambert, N, Waddington, M, Mahtani, KR, Kenten, C, Howe, A, Francis, SA·2012·Health Technology Assessment
DOI 10.3310/hta16300
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is recognition of the importance of measuring patients' experiences, expectations and satisfaction. OBJECTIVES: To assess the literature on the concept and measurement of patients' expectations for health care, and to develop and test a measure of patients' expectations, using adult patients in community, general practice and hospital outpatient departments in Greater London, Norwich and Essex, UK. DATA SOURCES: Major electronic databases including the British Nursing Index, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and the Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts were searched between 2000 and 2009. REVIEW METHODS: Narrative review, semi-structured exploratory study and surveys of GP patients and hospital outpatients immediately before and after their surgery/clinic visit to measure their pre-visit expectations for their health care and their post-visit experiences (expectations met and satisfaction with visit) (site specific). RESULTS: A total of 20,439 titles and 266 abstracts were identified, of which 211 were included in the review. Most research designs were weak, with small or selected samples, and a theoretical frame of reference was rarely stated. The origin of questions about expectations was often absent, questions were frequently untested and those with reported reliability or validity data had generally mixed results. In the survey data the expectations measures met acceptability criteria for reliability; all exceeded the threshold of α = 0.70, in each mode of administration and sample type. Items and subscales also correlated at least moderately with those variables that they were expected to be associated with, supporting their validity. The item means within subscales were generally similar between samples and all-item-total correlations exceeded the acceptability threshold. Descriptive findings revealed that most patients ideally expected cleanliness, information about where to go, convenient and punctual appointments and helpful reception staff, the doctor to be knowledgeable, clear and easy to understand, to be involved in treatment decisions and to experience a reduction in symptoms/problems. Expectations least likely to be met included being seen on time and choice of hospital/doctor (items requested by the ethics committee). Other items that had low met expectations included helpfulness of reception staff, doctor being respectful and treating with dignity (hospital sample), doctor knowledgeable (hospital), being given reassurance, receiving advice about health/condition, information about cause and management of condition and information about benefits/side effects of treatment, being given an opportunity to discuss problems, and the three items on outcome expectancies. Previous consultations/experiences of health services and health-care staff/professionals most commonly influenced expectations. Overall, pre-visit realistic expectations were lower than patients' ideals or hopes. Most post-visit experiences indicated some unmet expectations (e.g. cause and management of health/condition, benefits/side effects of treatments) and some expectations that were exceeded. Generally, GP patients reported higher pre-visit expectations and post-visit met expectations. Correlations between subscale domains were strongest between the structure and process of health care, doctor-patient communication style and doctor's approach to giving information, all common indicators of the quality of health care, supporting the validity of the measures. The post-visit experiences subscale significantly predicted single-item summary ratings of overall met expectations and satisfaction. GP rather than hospital patients were also independently predictive of expectations met. Other predictors were having no/little anxiety/depression, older age (satisfaction) and fewer effects of health on quality of life (met expectations). LIMITATIONS: The surveys in clinics were based on convenience, not random sampling methods. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have implications for establishing the quality of health services and informing their improvement. Awareness of the patient's met and unmet expectations should enable staff to understand the patient's perspective and improve communication. This study examined the perspective of the patient only; it is not possible to examine the extent to which any expectations might have been unrealistically too high or too low. This is a challenge for future research. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and the National Co-ordinating Centre for Research Methodology (NCCRM).

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3310/hta16300

Cites

269 of 269 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Patients' responses and favorable progression could largely be explained by changes in quality of life, social support, and/or particular life events occurring at the same time as the treatment.

    “In particular, patients' responses and their favorable progression could largely be explained by changes in quality of life, social support, and/or particular life events occurring at the same time as the treatment (Bandelow et al., 2018; Bowling et al., 2012).”

    From Patients´ and Therapists´ Reports of Psychotherapy Outcomes: Similarities and Differences (2023) · cites this paper as Bowling et al., 2012

    The ‘Theme 3: outcomes’ and ‘Post-visit subscales’ passages discuss patients’ lifestyles and improved quality of life, but do not say that changes in quality of life explain favorable progression. Searches for social support, life events, and concurrent influences on treatment outcomes found no passage making that explanation. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.71)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Flagged first, then by citations

39 of the 308 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 52

  1. Kenten C, Bowling A, Lambert N, Howe A, Rowe G. A study of patient expectations in a Norfolk general practice. Health Expect 2010;13:273-84.
  2. Bowling A. Measuring disease. A review of disease specific quality of life measurement scales, 2nd edn. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2001.
  3. Bowling A. Measuring health, 3rd edn. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2005.
  4. Bowling A. Measuring outcomes. In Bowling A, Ebrahim S, editors. Handbook of health research methods: investigation, measurement and analysis. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2005.
  5. Mondoloch MV, Cole DC, Frank JW. Does how you do depend upon how you think you'll do? A structured review of the evidence for a relation between patients' recovery expectations and outcomes. Toronto: Institute for Work and Health; 1999.
  6. Rao JK,Weinberger M, Kroenke K. Visit-specific expectations and patient-centred outcomes. Arch Fam Med 2000;9:1148-55.
  7. Bowling A. Research methods in health. Investigating health and health services, 2nd edn. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2002.
  8. Bowling A, Redfern J. The process of outpatient referral and care: the experience and views of patients, their general practitioners, and specialists. Br J Gen Pract 2000;50:116-20.
  9. Bowling A, Bond M. A national evaluation of specialists' clinics in primary care settings. Br J Gen Pract 2001;51:264-9.
  10. Bowling A. An 'inverse satisfaction' law? Why don't older patients criticise health services? J Epidemiol Community Health 2002;56:482.
  11. Janzen JA, Silvus J, Jacobs S, Slaughter S, Dalziel W, Drummond N. What is a health expectation? Development of a pragmatic conceptual model from psychological theory. Health Expect 2006;9:37-48. References
  12. Ajzen I. Attitudes, personality and behaviour. Milton Keynes: Open University Press; 1988.
  13. Miller J. Studying satisfaction, modifying models, eliciting expectations, posing problems, and making meaningful measurements. In Hunt HK, editor. Conceptualisation and measurement of consumer satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute; 1977.
  14. Uhlmann RF, Inui TS, Carter WB. Patient requests and expectations. Definitions and clinical applications. Med Care 1984;22:681-5.
  15. Faller H, Vogel H, Bosch B. Patient expectations regarding methods and outcomes of their rehabilitation -a controlled study of back pain and cancer patients. Rehabilitation 2000;39:205-14.
  16. Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1986.
  17. Donabedian A. The definition of quality and approaches to its assessment. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press; 1980.
  18. Locke EA. What is job satisfaction? Organ Behav Hum Perform 1969;4:309-36. References
  19. Roscoe JA, Bushunow P, Morrow GR, Hickok JT, Kuebler PJ, Jacobs A, et al. Patient expectation is a strong predictor of severe nausea after chemotherapy: a University of Rochester Community Clinical Oncology Program study of patients with breast carcinoma. Cancer 2004;101:2701-8.
  20. Redsell S, Jackson C, Stokes T, Hastings A, Baker R. Patient expectations of 'first-contact care' consultations with nurse and general practitioners in primary care. Qual Prim Care 2007;15:5-10.
  21. Richardson LA. Seeking and obtaining mental health services: what do parents expect? Arch Psychiatr Nurs 2001;15:223-31.
  22. Wardman L. and the Bolton Research Group. Patients' knowledge and expectations of confidentiality in primary health care: a quantitative study. Br J Gen Pract 2000;50:901-2.
  23. Horrocks S, Coast J. Patient choice: an exploration of primary care dermatology patients' values and expectations of care. Qual Prim Care 2007;15:185-93.
  24. Lampley-Dallas VT, Mold JW, Flori DE. African-American caregivers' expectations of physicians: gaining insights into the key issues of caregivers' concerns. J Natl Black Nurses Assoc 2005;16:18-23.
  25. Lindstand P, Brodin J, Lind L. Parental expectations from three different perspectives: what are they based on? Int J Rehabil Res 2002;25:261-9.
  26. Weems CF. The Anxiety Change Expectancy Scale shows high internal validity and correlation with validated measures of anxiety, self-esteem and hopelessness in varied settings. Evid Based Ment Health 2006;9:66.
  27. Ajzen I. (1988). Attitudes, personality and behaviour. Open University Press: Milton Keynes.
  28. Bandura A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  29. Bowling A. (2002a). An 'inverse satisfaction' law? Why don't older patients criticise health services? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 56:482.
  30. Bowling A. (2002b). Research methods in health. Investigating health and health services. 2nd edition. Buckingham: Open University Press (486 pages).
  31. Bowling A. (2005a). Measuring Health. 3rd edition. Buckingham: Open University Press (208 pages).
  32. Bowling A. (2005b). Techniques of questionnaire design. In: Bowling, A. and Ebrahim, S. (eds). Handbook of health research methods: investigation, measurement and analysis. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
  33. Bowling A. (2005c). Surveys. In: Bowling, A. and Ebrahim, S. (eds). (2005). Handbook of health research methods: investigation, measurement and analysis. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
  34. Bowling A. (2005d). Measuring outcomes. In: Bowling, A. and Ebrahim, S. (eds). Handbook of health research methods: investigation, measurement and analysis. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
  35. Bowling A, Bond M. (2001). A national evaluation of specialists' clinics in primary care settings. British Journal of General Practice, 51:264-269.
  36. Bowling A, Gabriel Z, Dykes J. et al. (2003). Let's ask them: a national survey of definitions of quality of life and its enhancement among people aged 65 and over. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 56:269-306.
  37. Bowling A and Redfern, J. (2000). The process of outpatient referral and care: the experience and views of patients, their general practitioners, and specialists. British Journal of General Practice, 50:116-120.
  38. Calman KC. (1984). Quality of life in cancer patients -a hypothesis. Journal of Medical Ethics, 10:124-7.
  39. Cartwright A, Anderson, R. (1981). General practice revisited. A second study of patients and their doctors. London: Tavistock Press.
  40. Chalmers I. (1995). What do I want from health research and researchers when I am a patient? British Medical Journal, 310:1315-18.
  41. Crow R, Gage H, Hampson S. et al. (1999). The role of expectancies in the placebo effect and their use in the delivery of health care: a systematic review. Health Technology Assessment, 3(3).
  42. Crow R, Gage H, Hampson S. et al. (2002). The measurement of satisfaction with healthcare: implications for practice from a systematic review of the literature. Health Technology Assessment, 6(32).
  43. Donabedian A. (1980). The definition of quality and approaches to its assessment. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press.
  44. Donovan D, Saunders C. (2005). Key issues in the analysis of qualitative data in health services research. In: A. Bowling, S. Ebrahim (eds). Handbook of health research methods. Investigation, measurement and analysis. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
  45. Fishbein M. (1967). Attitude and the prediction of behavior. In: M. Fishbein (ed). Readings in attitude theory and measurement. New York: Wiley.
  46. Kravitz RL, Callahan EJ, Paterniti D. et al. (1996). Prevalence and sources of patients' unmet expectations for care. Annals of Internal Medicine, 125:730-37.
  47. Linder-Pelz S. and Struening EL. (1985). The multidimensionality of patient satisfaction with a clinic visit. Journal of Community Health, 10:42.
  48. Olsen JM, Roese NJ, Zanna MP. (1996). Expectancies, in: Higgins ET, Kruglanski AW (eds). Social Psychology: handbook of basic principles. New York: Guilford press.
  49. Ritchie J, Spencer L. (1994). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman A, Burgess RG. (eds). Analysing qualitative data. London: Routledge.
  50. Stacey M. (1976). The health service consumer: a sociological misconception. Sociological Review Monograph, 22:194-200.
  51. Thompson AGH and Sunol R. (1995). Expectations as determinants of patient satisfaction: concepts, theory and evidence. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 7:127-141.
  52. Any other group, please specify: ....................................... 509 Health Technology Assessment 2012; Vol. 16: No. 30 DOI: 10.3310/hta16300 Thank you for your valuable help with this study. Self-administration questionnaire only: When you have completed this questionnaire please return it to us in the reply-paid, freepost envelope provided. You do not need stamp on the envelope

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bowling, A., Rowe, G., Lambert, N., Waddington, M., Mahtani, K., Kenten, C., Howe, A., & Francis, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (GB)
  • The Royal Free Hospital (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
Corresponding author
Bowling, A
ORCID
Venue
Health Technology Assessment
Publisher
National Institute for Health and Care Research
Published
2012-07
Volume
16
Issue
30
Pages
i-xii, 1
ISSN
  • 1366-5278 (ISSN-L)
  • 2046-4924
DOI
10.3310/hta16300
OpenAlex
W2094146837
Cited by
326
References
308
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Health Technology Assessment (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Health Technology Assessment programme (07/58/01)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
patient expectations, patient satisfaction, patient experience, psychometric validation, general practice, outpatient clinics, physician-patient communication, shared decision-making, outcome expectations, reliability and validity
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Delivery of Health Care, England, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results, Patient Satisfaction, Health Care Surveys

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