Measuring Patient Expectations

Does the Instrument Affect Satisfaction or Expectations

Bibliographic Data

ID9099595
AuthorsB Mitchell Peck (0000-0002-9839-8197, corresponding author), David A Asch (0000-0002-7970-286X), Susan Dorr Goold (0000-0002-0258-9774, General Department of Preventive Medicine), Debra L Roter, Debra Roter (0000-0003-2203-9697, Johns Hopkins University), Peter A Ubel (0000-0001-8218-519X), Lauren M McIntyre (0000-0002-0077-3359, Duke University, corresponding author), Katherine H Abbott (Duke University, corresponding author), Jennifer A Hoff (Duke University, corresponding author), Celine M Koropchak, James A Tulsky (0000-0002-7458-0453, Duke University, corresponding author)
Year2001
Volume39
Issue1
Pages100-108
Publication date2001-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueMedical Care (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0025-7079 • E-ISSN: 1537-1948
PublisherOvid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1097/00005650-200101000-00011
PMID11176547
OpenAlexW2024788528
LanguageEN
Citations received3
References cited22

BACKGROUND: Fulfillment of patients' expectations may influence health care utilization, affect patient satisfaction, and be used to indicate quality of care. Several different instruments have been used to measure expectations, yet little is known about how different assessment methods affect outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The object of the study was to determine whether different measurement instruments elicit different numbers and types of expectations and different levels of patient satisfaction. DESIGN: Patients waiting to see their physician were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 2 commonly used instruments assessing expectations or were assigned to a third (control) group that was not asked about expectations. After the visit, patients in all 3 groups were asked about their satisfaction and services they received. SUBJECTS: The study subjects were 290 male, primary care outpatients in a VA general medicine clinic. MEASURES: A "short" instrument asked about 3 general expectations for tests, referrals, and new medications, while a "long" instrument nested similar questions within a more detailed list. Wording also differed between the 2 instruments. The short instrument asked patients what they wanted; the long instrument asked patients what they thought was necessary for the physician to do. Satisfaction was measured with a visit-specific questionnaire and a more general assessment of physician interpersonal skills. RESULTS: Patients receiving the long instrument were more likely to express expectations for tests (83% vs. 28%, P <0.001), referrals (40% vs. 18%, P <0.001), and new medications (45% vs. 28%, P <0.001). The groups differed in the number of unmet expectations: 40% of the long instrument group reported at least 1 unmet expectation compared with 19% of the short instrument group (P <0.001). Satisfaction was similar among the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: These different instruments elicit different numbers of expectations but do not affect patient satisfaction

Affect (linguistics) · Family medicine · Interpersonal communication · Patient satisfaction · Medicine · Nursing · Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare · Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare · Primary Care and Health Outcomes · Psychology · Social Psychology