Maarten W Krol1, Dolf de Boer1, Diana M Delnoij2,3, Jany J D J M Rademakers1. 1. Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. TRANZO, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands. 3. Institute for Quality in Health Care, Diemen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the search for more straightforward ways of summarizing patient experiences and satisfaction, there is growing interest in the Net Promoter Score (NPS): How likely is it that you would recommend our company to a friend or colleague? OBJECTIVE: To assess what the NPS adds to patient experience surveys. The NPS was tested against three other constructs already used in current surveys to summarize patient experiences and satisfaction: global ratings, recommendation questions and overall scores calculated from patient experiences. To establish whether the NPS is a valid measure for summarizing patient experiences, its association with these experiences should be assessed. METHODS: Associations between the NPS and the three other constructs were assessed and their distributions were compared. Also, the association between the NPS and patient experiences was assessed. Data were used from patient surveys of inpatient hospital care (N = 6018) and outpatient hospital care (N = 10 902) in six Dutch hospitals. RESULTS: Analyses showed that the NPS was moderately to strongly correlated with the other three constructs. However, their distributions proved distinctly different. Furthermore, the patient experiences from the surveys showed weaker associations with the NPS than with the global rating and the overall score. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the limited extent to which the NPS reflects the survey results, it seems less valid as a summary of patient experiences than a global rating, the existing recommendation question or an overall score calculated from patient experiences. In short, it is still unclear what the NPS specifically adds to patient experience surveys.
BACKGROUND: In the search for more straightforward ways of summarizing patient experiences and satisfaction, there is growing interest in the Net Promoter Score (NPS): How likely is it that you would recommend our company to a friend or colleague? OBJECTIVE: To assess what the NPS adds to patient experience surveys. The NPS was tested against three other constructs already used in current surveys to summarize patient experiences and satisfaction: global ratings, recommendation questions and overall scores calculated from patient experiences. To establish whether the NPS is a valid measure for summarizing patient experiences, its association with these experiences should be assessed. METHODS: Associations between the NPS and the three other constructs were assessed and their distributions were compared. Also, the association between the NPS and patient experiences was assessed. Data were used from patient surveys of inpatient hospital care (N = 6018) and outpatient hospital care (N = 10 902) in six Dutch hospitals. RESULTS: Analyses showed that the NPS was moderately to strongly correlated with the other three constructs. However, their distributions proved distinctly different. Furthermore, the patient experiences from the surveys showed weaker associations with the NPS than with the global rating and the overall score. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the limited extent to which the NPS reflects the survey results, it seems less valid as a summary of patient experiences than a global rating, the existing recommendation question or an overall score calculated from patient experiences. In short, it is still unclear what the NPS specifically adds to patient experience surveys.
Authors: R D Hays; J A Shaul; V S Williams; J S Lubalin; L D Harris-Kojetin; S F Sweeny; P D Cleary Journal: Med Care Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Diana M J Delnoij; Guus ten Asbroek; Onyebuchi A Arah; Johan S de Koning; Piet Stam; Aldien Poll; Barbara Vriens; Paul Schmidt; Niek S Klazinga Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2006-03-08 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Robert Weech-Maldonado; Marc Elliott; Rohit Pradhan; Cameron Schiller; Allyson Hall; Ron D Hays Journal: Med Care Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jennifer R Simpson; Chen-Tan Lin; Amber Sieja; Stefan H Sillau; Jonathan Pell Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Christopher J Hoekstra; Joan S Ash; Nicole A Steckler; James R Becton; Benjamin W Sanders; Meenakshi Mishra; Paul N Gorman Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2021-05-04
Authors: Chantal A Zuizewind; Paul van Kessel; Christine M Kramer; Mary M Muijs; Janneke C Zwiers; Mattanja Triemstra Journal: J Clin Immunol Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 8.317
Authors: Abdullah Alismail; Brett Schaeffer; Andrea Oh; Saba Hamiduzzaman; Noha Daher; Hae-Young Song; Brian Furukawa; Laren D Tan Journal: Patient Relat Outcome Meas Date: 2020-05-19