Emmanuel Kabengele Mpinga1, Philippe Chastonay. 1. Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. Emmanuel.Kabengele@unige.ch
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Right to health indicators have been subject to debate. Indeed, inadequate monitoring or reporting by states, missing or contradicting data as well as a lack of consensus on what is an appropriate right to health indicator call for new approaches and new ideas in this field. One right to health indicator might be patient satisfaction, a widely collected indicator, yet not always beyond bias nor adequately monitored, neither well used. METHODS: We compared, applying the concept analysis of Rodgers, key-items of patient satisfaction surveys/reviews to key concepts of right to health as developed in the General Comment 14/2000 of the ICESCR. Inclusion criteria of the selected patient satisfaction papers were: number of citations in Scholar Google, various care settings, various cultural contexts, methodological reviews and time frame. RESULTS: High correspondence between recommended or collected patient satisfaction items and patients' rights as defined by the GC 14/2000 were observed, i.e. accessibility of care (information, financial, physical), availability (services, programs, personal), acceptability (cultural, gender-related), quality of care (scientific, medical). CONCLUSION: Patient satisfaction could prove a useful right to health indicator.
BACKGROUND: Right to health indicators have been subject to debate. Indeed, inadequate monitoring or reporting by states, missing or contradicting data as well as a lack of consensus on what is an appropriate right to health indicator call for new approaches and new ideas in this field. One right to health indicator might be patient satisfaction, a widely collected indicator, yet not always beyond bias nor adequately monitored, neither well used. METHODS: We compared, applying the concept analysis of Rodgers, key-items of patient satisfaction surveys/reviews to key concepts of right to health as developed in the General Comment 14/2000 of the ICESCR. Inclusion criteria of the selected patient satisfaction papers were: number of citations in Scholar Google, various care settings, various cultural contexts, methodological reviews and time frame. RESULTS: High correspondence between recommended or collected patient satisfaction items and patients' rights as defined by the GC 14/2000 were observed, i.e. accessibility of care (information, financial, physical), availability (services, programs, personal), acceptability (cultural, gender-related), quality of care (scientific, medical). CONCLUSION:Patient satisfaction could prove a useful right to health indicator.
Authors: Sara Viotti; Claudio Giovanni Cortese; Jacopo Garlasco; Erika Rainero; Ifeoma Nneka Emelurumonye; Stefano Passi; Flavio Boraso; Maria Michela Gianino Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 3.390