OBJECTIVE: To compare replies to open-ended and closed questions about patient satisfaction with family doctors. METHODS: Two centres of primary health care in Białystok in northeast Poland were chosen. A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to 1000 people (500 from each centre) aged 18 years and over, randomly selected from the practices. Possible responses to the one closed question were: very good, good, bad, very bad or difficult to say. Replies to two open-ended questions were categorized as positive, neutral, negative or ambivalent. RESULTS: The response rate was 57.9%. There were some discrepancies between the closed-question response and the open-ended question replies. Some of those who replied good or very good to the closed question expressed negative views in response to the two open-ended questions (14.0% and 12.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Answers to open-ended questions add value to a patient satisfaction survey by providing information that answers to closed questions may not elicite.
OBJECTIVE: To compare replies to open-ended and closed questions about patient satisfaction with family doctors. METHODS: Two centres of primary health care in Białystok in northeast Poland were chosen. A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to 1000 people (500 from each centre) aged 18 years and over, randomly selected from the practices. Possible responses to the one closed question were: very good, good, bad, very bad or difficult to say. Replies to two open-ended questions were categorized as positive, neutral, negative or ambivalent. RESULTS: The response rate was 57.9%. There were some discrepancies between the closed-question response and the open-ended question replies. Some of those who replied good or very good to the closed question expressed negative views in response to the two open-ended questions (14.0% and 12.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Answers to open-ended questions add value to a patient satisfaction survey by providing information that answers to closed questions may not elicite.
Authors: Sachiko M Oshima; Sarah D Tait; Christel Rushing; Whitney Lane; Terry Hyslop; Anaeze C Offodile; Stephanie B Wheeler; S Yousuf Zafar; Rachel Greenup; Laura J Fish Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-02-10
Authors: Esmee M van der Willik; Yvette Meuleman; Karen Prantl; Giel van Rijn; Willem Jan W Bos; Frans J van Ittersum; Hans A J Bart; Marc H Hemmelder; Friedo W Dekker Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2019-09-02 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Renly Lim; Lisa Kalisch Ellett; Elizabeth E Roughead; Phaik Yeong Cheah; Nashwa Masnoon Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-12 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Anna Victoria Bowyer; Ilora Finlay; Jessica Baillie; Anthony Byrne; Jacqui McCarthy; Catherine Sampson; Veronica Snow; Annmarie Nelson Journal: BMJ Support Palliat Care Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 3.568