A Randomized Trial of Four Patient Satisfaction Questionnaires
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9097433 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Thomas V Perneger, Thomas Perneger (0000-0001-5667-0968, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, corresponding author), Michel P Kossovsky (University Hospital of Geneva, corresponding author), Federico Cathieni (Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine), Val??rie di Florio, Val rie di Florio (University Hospital of Geneva, corresponding author), Bernard Burnand (0000-0002-5678-6044, University of Lausanne) |
| Year | 2003 |
| Volume | 41 |
| Issue | 12 |
| Pages | 1343-1352 |
| Publication date | 2003-12-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Medical Care (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0025-7079 • E-ISSN: 1537-1948 |
| Publisher | Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1097/01.mlr.0000100580.94559.ad |
| PMID | 14668667 |
| OpenAlex | W2040292417 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
| References cited | 23 |
BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction surveys are increasingly used by hospitals. Many questionnaires are available, but little evidence exists to guide the choice of the most suitable instrument. OBJECTIVE: To compare the acceptability and patient perceptions of 4 patient satisfaction questionnaires. RESEARCH DESIGN: Randomized trial of 4 satisfaction questionnaires: Picker, Patient Judgment System (PJS), Sequs, and a locally developed Lausanne questionnaire. SUBJECTS: Patients discharged from 2 Swiss teaching hospitals (n = 2850). MEASURES: Response rates, missing data, completion time, and patient ratings of the questionnaire (5-point agree-disagree scale). RESULTS: Response rates were similar across instruments (Picker: 70%, PJS: 71%, Sequs: 68%, Lausanne: 73%; P= 0.27). The Picker questionnaire had the most missing responses (mean per item: Picker: 3.1%, PJS: 1.9%, Sequs: 1.6%, Lausanne: 1.1%; P<0.001) and took the longest to complete (minutes: Picker: 19.3, PJS: 12.5, Sequs: 13.4, Lausanne: 13.1; P<0.001), but the fewest patients indicated that the questionnaire failed to address at least 1 important aspect of the hospital stay (Picker: 28.2%, PJS: 38.8%, Sequs: 39.1%, Lausanne: 28.9%; P<0.001). Patient evaluations of the questionnaires were generally similar; the most favorable assessment was chosen by approximately half of the respondents (average of 10 items: Picker: 46.5%, PJS: 46.2%, Sequs: 47.4%, Lausanne: 48.2%; P= 0.60). Key survey results differed considerably by questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: No questionnaire emerged as uniformly better than the others in terms of acceptability and patient evaluations. All 4 could be used for patient satisfaction surveys
Family medicine · Patient satisfaction · Randomized controlled trial · Medicine · Nausea and vomiting management · Nursing · Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare · Primary Care and Health Outcomes · Surgery
A randomised controlled trial of postal versus interviewer administration of a questionnaire measuring satisfaction with, and use of, services received in the year before death
Measuring Patient Satisfaction With Physicians Among Older and Diseased Adults in a Primary Care Municipal Outpatient Setting An Examination of Three Instruments
A Comparative Study of Seven Measures of Patient Satisfaction
Does Sponsorship Matter in Patient Satisfaction Surveys
Patient Judgments of Hospital Quality A Taxonomy
Hospital Quality Trends
Methods For Measuring Patient Satisfaction With Specific Medical Encounters
My Medical Care Is Better Than Yours
Improving the Assessment of (In)patients??? Satisfaction With Hospital Care
| Unique citing works | 5 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,24 |
| Citation span | 2005 - 2014 (10) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 5 |