An evaluation of a patient satisfaction survey: validity and reliability
ABSTRACT Patient reports about their medical care can be an important component of quality assessment of medical services. Recently, many medical centers and health care providers have focused their attention to a consumer oriented evaluation and assessment of services. Research literature indicates that the assessment of quality of care from the patient’s perspective has been operationalized as patient satisfaction. The purpose of this report is to evaluate a southern medical center’s External Patient Satisfaction Survey instrument for validity and reliability and provide a basis that providers might use routinely and systematically to assess the quality of medical care. This article reports on the initial appraisal of content validity, factor structure, and estimated internal consistency reliability of the instrument.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Purpose – The aim of this study is to evaluate the quality of life of patients with different types of cancer in Jordan and its relationship with nursing care. Design/methodology/approach – An exploratory approach utilizing cross-sectional design with a structured questionnaire, administered to patients face-to-face, with specific questions about demographic and health status and two standardized scales: Patients Satisfaction with Nursing Scale (NSNS), and Function of Living Index-Cancer (FLIC) were used. The study sample comprised 156 patients with cancer who were hospitalized in two governmental hospitals in Amman and Karak and two university-based hospitals in Amman and Irbid cities. Findings – The sample of the study showed that the types of cancer distribution were close to the cancer distribution among the Jordanian population. The median age of the sample was 47 years with a range between 18 years and 80 years. Nearly two-thirds of the participants perceived their current health as good. All variables in the regression equation (satisfaction with nursing care, health perception now, health in comparison with one year ago, and gender) have significantly explained a considerable amount of variance in the cancer patients' quality of life. Research limitations/implications – Using a quantitative approach alone to measure QoL is not sufficient to reflect all dimensions of a subjective phenomenon such as QoL. The study did not differentiate between patients according to severity of cancer and type of treatment. Practical implications – Providing proper nursing care improves cancer patients' quality of life. Originality/value – This study stemmed from: the assessing and identifying predictors of quality of life (QoL) as perceived by patients with cancer and not by the care-providers; and highlighting the positive effect of nursing care on QoL for cancer patients.Leadership in Health Services. 07/2010; 23(3):233-243.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Health care system reform is a major issue in many countries and therefore how to evaluate the effects of changes is incredibly important. This study measured residents' satisfaction with community health care service in Shanghai, China, and aimed to evaluate the effect of recent health care system reform. Face-to-face interviews were performed with a stratified random sample of 2212 residents of the Shanghai residents using structured questionnaires. In addition, 972 valid responses were retrieved from internet contact. Controlling for sex, age, income and education, the study used logistic regression modeling to analyze factors associated with satisfaction and to explain the factors that affect the residents' satisfaction. Comparing current attitudes with those held at the initial implementation of the reform in this investigation, four dimensions of health care were analyzed: 1) the health insurance system; 2) essential drugs; 3) basic clinical services; and 4) public health services. Satisfaction across all dimensions improved since the reform was initiated, but differences of satisfaction level were found among most dimensions and groups. Residents currently expressed greater satisfaction with clinical service (average score=3.79, with 5 being most satisfied) and the public health/preventive services (average score=3.62); but less satisfied with the provision of essential drugs (average score=3.20) and health insurance schemes (average score=3.23). The disadvantaged groups (the elderly, the retired, those with only an elementary education, those with lower incomes) had overall poorer satisfaction levels on these four aspects of health care (P<0.01). 25.39% of the respondents thought that their financial burden had increased and 38.49% thought that drugs had become more expensive. The respondents showed more satisfaction with the clinical services (average score=3.79) and public health services/interventions (average score=3.79); and less satisfaction with the health insurance system (average score=3.23) and the essential drug system (average score=3.20). Disadvantaged groups showed lower satisfaction levels overall relative to non-disadvantaged groups.BMC Public Health 06/2012; 12 Suppl 1:S9. · 2.08 Impact Factor