Question
Asked 16th Dec, 2016

Where can I find good information on "factor that influence satisfaction of patient primary health service"?

Where can I find good information on "factor that influence satisfaction of patient primary health service"?
Need this information to help me explain my literature review and questioniar about it. thanks

Most recent answer

7th Jan, 2017
Yuni Triwardani
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta
Thanks yoy very much Sir and Mis for your answer my question. Its usefull for me to make research :)
1 Recommendation

Popular answers (1)

21st Dec, 2016
Stephen C Schoenbaum
The Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation - retired
I strongly agree with Kate Lorig's components, but I do not think they should be thought of as distinct in the sense that I'm pretty certain that there is interaction between factors within the control of managers of a system and factors in control of health care providers.  A little over 30 years ago, I first did a patient satisfaction and experience study, which I now regret we did not publish.  I was then a manager and clinician in a staff model HMO, Harvard Community Health Plan, which was like a small version of Kaiser Permanente.  We employed and contracted with a number of surgeons, and most of the surgeons saw patients in more than one of our multi-specialty group practice sites.  What we discovered was the following: First, there was variation in the overall satisfaction scores that our surgeons got.  There also was variation in the scores that a surgeon got in different sites in which s/he practiced.  The rank order of an individual surgeons' scores in relation to his/her peers tended  to be preserved across sites, just not the absolute score.  Why?  The individual factors were pretty constant for a given individual surgeon; but the differences in the scores an individual surgeon got at site A vs. site B were highly related to the system differences between sites.  For example, waiting times for appointments, which related highly to "supply" of surgeons at a given site, varied. And when it took less than two weeks for a patient to see the surgeon, the surgeon tended to receive a higher overall satisfaction rating - even though it was supposed to be satisfaction with the surgeon and not the overall visit - than if it took longer to get to see the surgeon.
Intuitively this made sense to me.  When I was practicing internal medicine, I initially didn't try to control my own schedule and sometimes discovered that my assistants who made appointments had put barriers in the way of some patients so that it took many weeks for them to see me.  I recall then meeting patients whose first words were, "you must be really special - it took me 6 weeks before I could see you."  Those words were not said kindly; and I realized that the patient was entering the interaction with me with a chip on his/her shoulder.  Fortunately, I was able to teach my assistants a way of scheduling that reduced my waiting times to a few days at most (so-called "open access" scheduling hadn't been described at that time, but my approach was similar); and from then on, my patients seemed to being the interaction in much better spirits.
4 Recommendations

All Answers (10)

17th Dec, 2016
Saeed Anwar
Peshawar Medical College / Prime Institute of Public Health
Literature search through the key words seems to be the right way.
18th Dec, 2016
Sudeep C B
Kerala University of Health Sciences
Hello there,
Literature search online will yield you results in forms of reviews or original research articles, also try going through the reference section they also will have potential articles and links for your purpose.
You can also find an article i have co-authored in my contribution section here, titled  " Barriers in Utilization of Oral Health Care Services Among Patients Attending Primary and Community Health Centres in Virajpet, South Karnataka''.
hope it helps.
2 Recommendations
Hallo Yuni,
kebetulan saya bisa bahasa Indonesia, jadi saya akan menjawab dengan bahasa ini, semoga bisa dimengerti. Apakah anda mencari literature khusus untuk bahasa Inggris? dan bisa dicari di Google, dengan kata kunci "satisfaction of Primary Health Care". Namun untuk bahasa Indonesia, bisa dengan kata kunci "kepuasan kesehatan primer".
Semoga bisa membantu membuat literature review yang bermutu.
21st Dec, 2016
Rui Passadouro
Administração Regional de Saúde do Centro, IP
21st Dec, 2016
Abbas Ziari
Semnan University of Medical Sciences
Hello, there are some good information in a book :" Family Physicians: Whats and Whys
Capacity Building in Health Network" . It is in  Persian (Farsi) of course ! about primary health service in Iran. I do not know whether it is useful for you or not.
and there are different articles about measuring patients' satisfaction .
If I find new related resource I will  inform you .
21st Dec, 2016
Stephen C Schoenbaum
The Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation - retired
The advice that others have given already on doing a literature search is an excellent start.  You should not only look at "patient satisfaction" but also "patient experience."  Satisfaction is a subjective impression.  Experience is a patient report of what she or he believe occurred.  The two are related but not the same by any means.  
In the US, we now place a lot of attention on patient experience.  There is a U.S. government developed and approved survey instrument of patient experience in various clinical settings called "CAHPS."  The CAHPS for Clinicians and Medical Groups is the focus of the item you can find at the following link: http://www.ahrq.gov/cahps/surveys-guidance/cg/improve/index.html   The link takes you to an agency of the U.S. government, and it refers to a guide to improving patient experience that you can access.  I suspect that all this could be adapted to Indonesia.
21st Dec, 2016
Kate R Lorig
Stanford University
In the United States and my guess is that this is true in other places, there are two very distinct components of satisfaction.  The first is satisfaction with the system and this includes everything from wait times, parking (transportation) cleanliness, greetings by staff to how long it takes to get an appointment.   The second factor is the health care providers--do they listen, is there enough face time, did the patient get what they came for, did the providers appear caring etc. 
21st Dec, 2016
Stephen C Schoenbaum
The Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation - retired
I strongly agree with Kate Lorig's components, but I do not think they should be thought of as distinct in the sense that I'm pretty certain that there is interaction between factors within the control of managers of a system and factors in control of health care providers.  A little over 30 years ago, I first did a patient satisfaction and experience study, which I now regret we did not publish.  I was then a manager and clinician in a staff model HMO, Harvard Community Health Plan, which was like a small version of Kaiser Permanente.  We employed and contracted with a number of surgeons, and most of the surgeons saw patients in more than one of our multi-specialty group practice sites.  What we discovered was the following: First, there was variation in the overall satisfaction scores that our surgeons got.  There also was variation in the scores that a surgeon got in different sites in which s/he practiced.  The rank order of an individual surgeons' scores in relation to his/her peers tended  to be preserved across sites, just not the absolute score.  Why?  The individual factors were pretty constant for a given individual surgeon; but the differences in the scores an individual surgeon got at site A vs. site B were highly related to the system differences between sites.  For example, waiting times for appointments, which related highly to "supply" of surgeons at a given site, varied. And when it took less than two weeks for a patient to see the surgeon, the surgeon tended to receive a higher overall satisfaction rating - even though it was supposed to be satisfaction with the surgeon and not the overall visit - than if it took longer to get to see the surgeon.
Intuitively this made sense to me.  When I was practicing internal medicine, I initially didn't try to control my own schedule and sometimes discovered that my assistants who made appointments had put barriers in the way of some patients so that it took many weeks for them to see me.  I recall then meeting patients whose first words were, "you must be really special - it took me 6 weeks before I could see you."  Those words were not said kindly; and I realized that the patient was entering the interaction with me with a chip on his/her shoulder.  Fortunately, I was able to teach my assistants a way of scheduling that reduced my waiting times to a few days at most (so-called "open access" scheduling hadn't been described at that time, but my approach was similar); and from then on, my patients seemed to being the interaction in much better spirits.
4 Recommendations
7th Jan, 2017
Yuni Triwardani
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta
Thanks yoy very much Sir and Mis for your answer my question. Its usefull for me to make research :)
1 Recommendation

Similar questions and discussions

How to study the dynamics of social marginalization (DoM)
Discussion
2 replies
  • S A Hamed HosseiniS A Hamed Hosseini
Researching DoM is about exploring how a group of people is socially marginalized and what are the main social mechanisms of such a process. In this section, I attempt to develop a preliminary definition of ‘social marginalization’ as a socio-anthropological concept as well as a general research and debate framework that needs to be adapted and contextualized depending on the social context of the study.
Definition:
Social Marginalization happens when a group of people are relatively deprived of having equal and adequate opportunity to determine their relationships autonomously ( in any aspect of social life) with the members of the broader society.
  1. This process is historical, can be inter- and/or intra- group.
  2. Social marginalization has both subjective and objective dimensions.
  3. The mechanisms that facilitate and maintain marginalization are both ideational and material.
  4. Social marginalization is usually legitimized ideologically, culturally, and cognitively. Both the marginalized and mainstream may share the same mentalities that justify such a process.
  5. Social marginalization is usually sustained through policies and laws; underlying these laws are ideological mentalities often justified in the name of science, bureaucracy, efficiency, growth, ethics, patriotism, and religion.
Marginalization is usually associated with the lack of: 1.    representation in decision-making processes 2.    recognition of rights and responsibilities 3.    equal redistribution of resources and services
Studies of social inequality mostly provide us with rather static pictures of society in terms of the distribution of income, wealth, social opportunities. They pay less attention to the dynamics of social inequality
In contrast, studies of social marginalization open up a new angle in understanding how social inequalities and exclusions happen and evolve. These studies are expected to be theoretically integrative, multi-method, and cross-disciplinary regarding the multidimensionality of social marginalization.
(c) S A Hamed Hosseini, 2009
Got a technical question?
Get high-quality answers from experts.