Martina Allemann Iseli1, Regina Kunz2, Eva Blozik3. 1. Swiss Center for Telemedicine Medgate, Basel, Switzerland. 2. Academy of Swiss Insurance Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 3. Swiss Center for Telemedicine Medgate, Basel, Switzerland ; Department of Primary Medical Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse, Hamburg, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction is crucial for the acceptance, use, and adherence to recommendations from teleconsultations regarding health care requests and triage services. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives are to systematically review the literature for multidimensional instruments that measure patient satisfaction after teleconsultation and triage and to compare these for content, reliability, validity, and factor analysis. METHODS: We searched Medline, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycINFO for literature on these instruments. Two reviewers independently screened all obtained references for eligibility and extracted data from the eligible articles. The results were presented using summary tables. RESULTS: We included 31 publications, describing 16 instruments in our review. The reporting on test development and psychometric characteristics was incomplete. The development process, described by ten of 16 instruments, included a review of the literature (n=7), patient or stakeholder interviews (n=5), and expert consultations (n=3). Four instruments evaluated factor structure, reliability, and validity; two of those four demonstrated low levels of reliability for some of their subscales. CONCLUSION: A majority of instruments on patient satisfaction after teleconsultation showed methodological limitations and lack rigorous evaluation. Users should carefully reflect on the content of the questionnaires and their relevance to the application. Future research should apply more rigorously established scientific standards for instrument development and psychometric evaluation.
BACKGROUND:Patient satisfaction is crucial for the acceptance, use, and adherence to recommendations from teleconsultations regarding health care requests and triage services. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives are to systematically review the literature for multidimensional instruments that measure patient satisfaction after teleconsultation and triage and to compare these for content, reliability, validity, and factor analysis. METHODS: We searched Medline, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycINFO for literature on these instruments. Two reviewers independently screened all obtained references for eligibility and extracted data from the eligible articles. The results were presented using summary tables. RESULTS: We included 31 publications, describing 16 instruments in our review. The reporting on test development and psychometric characteristics was incomplete. The development process, described by ten of 16 instruments, included a review of the literature (n=7), patient or stakeholder interviews (n=5), and expert consultations (n=3). Four instruments evaluated factor structure, reliability, and validity; two of those four demonstrated low levels of reliability for some of their subscales. CONCLUSION: A majority of instruments on patient satisfaction after teleconsultation showed methodological limitations and lack rigorous evaluation. Users should carefully reflect on the content of the questionnaires and their relevance to the application. Future research should apply more rigorously established scientific standards for instrument development and psychometric evaluation.
Authors: Susan Randles Moscato; Marion David; Barbara Valanis; Christina M Gullion; Christine Tanner; Susan Shapiro; Shikego Izumi; Ann Mayo Journal: Clin Nurs Res Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 2.075
Authors: Paul Giesen; Eric Moll van Charante; Henk Mokkink; Patrick Bindels; Wil van den Bosch; Richard Grol Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2006-08-30
Authors: John Campbell; Martin Roland; Suzanne Richards; Andy Dickens; Michael Greco; Peter Bower Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Jac J W M Jacobs; Rianne Ekkelboom; Jan P A M Jacobs; Thys van der Molen; Robbert Sanderman Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Marie Mattisson; Christina Johnson; Sussanne Börjeson; Kristofer Årestedt; Malou Lindberg Journal: Health Expect Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Melinda Martin-Khan; Farhad Fatehi; Marina Kezilas; Karen Lucas; Leonard C Gray; Anthony C Smith Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2015-12-03 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Luke T A Mounce; Heather E Barry; Raffaele Calitri; William E Henley; John Campbell; Martin Roland; Suzanne Richards Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Anahita Bajka; Maximilian Robert Justus Wiest; Timothy Hamann; Mario Damiano Toro; Sandrine Anne Zweifel Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-29 Impact factor: 3.390