| Literature DB >> 26864118 |
Jac J W M Jacobs1,2, Rianne Ekkelboom3, Jan P A M Jacobs4, Thys van der Molen5, Robbert Sanderman6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accessibility to secondary health services is not always easy for patients who live at a great distance of hospital. In these circumstances, transferring diagnostic tools and treatment options to primary care could prove beneficial for patients. To do so, the quality of medical care and the costs and benefits of the approach need to be assessed. However, the patient perspective is equally important, offering important insights.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26864118 PMCID: PMC4748486 DOI: 10.1186/s12875-016-0418-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Fam Pract ISSN: 1471-2296 Impact factor: 2.497
Characteristics of respondents
GCSE General Certificate of Secondary Education
Patient satisfaction
| Questionnaire: Subscales | Subscales Mean ± SD | Number of observations | 95 % Confidence interval | Number of items | Cronbach’s alpha |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower–Upper | |||||
| Satisfaction about interpersonal manner | 26.8 ± 3.8 | 345 | 26.4–27.2 | 6 | 0.764 |
| Satisfaction about technical quality | 22.4 ± 3.7 | 355 | 22.0–22.7 | 5 | 0.761 |
Patient satisfaction by sociodemographic variables
| Satisfaction with interpersonal manner | Satisfaction with technical quality | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD |
| ANOVA | Mean ± SD |
| ANOVA | ||
| Total | 26.4 ± 3.9 | 345 | 22.4 ± 3.7 | 355 | |||
| Sex | Female | 26.6 ± 3.6 | 183 | 0.563 | 22.6 ± 3.4 | 189 | 0.247 |
| Male | 26.9 ± 4.1 | 157 | 22.1 ± 4.1 | 161 | |||
| Age | ≤20 y | 24.6 ± 4.7 | 93 | <0.001 | 21.5 ± 3.7 | 96 | 0.002 |
| 20–60 y | 27.1 ± 3.0 | 116 | 22.1 ± 4.2 | 121 | |||
| ≥60 y | 28.1 ± 3.0 | 136 | 23.2 ± 3.3 | 138 | |||
| Islander | Yes | 27.7 ± 3.1 | 237 | <0.001 | 23.0 ± 3.2 | 244 | <0.001 |
| [Registered own GP] | [27.7] | [0.845] | [23.0] | [0.982] | |||
| [Not registered own GP] | [27.6] | [23.0] | |||||
| No | 24.9 ± 4.5 | 108 | 20.9 ± 4.3 | 111 | |||
| Employment | Paid | 26.7 ± 3.0 | 118 | 0.972 | 22.3 ± 3.8 | 125 | 0.812 |
| Unpaid | 26.7 ± 4.2 | 222 | 22.5 ± 3.8 | 225 | |||
| X-ray history | Yes | 26.9 ± 3.6 | 264 | 0.162 | 22.4 ± 3.7 | 264 | 0.447 |
| No | 26.2 ± 4.7 | 67 | 22.1 ± 3.5 | 67 | |||
| X-ray indication: Trauma | Yes | 25.9 ± 4.2 | 177 | <0.001 | 21.8 ± 3.9 | 182 | 0.004 |
| No | 27.7 ± 3.1 | 168 | 22.9. ± 3.5 | 173 | |||
| Treatment | Yes | 26.7 ± 3.8 | 215 | 0.837 | 22.2 ± 4.0 | 221 | 0.331 |
| No | 27.0 ± 3.9 | 130 | 22.6 ± 3.2 | 134 | |||
| Treatment location | General Practice | 26.8 ± 3.8 | 128 | 0.448 | 22.5 ± 3.6 | 130 | 0.141 |
| Hospital | 26.3 ± 3.8 | 79 | 21.6 ± 4.5 | 83 | |||
| Health status | Good | 27.7 ± 3.8 | 290 | 0.069 | 22.3 ± 3.7 | 304 | 0.715 |
| Moderate | 26.6 ± 3.9 | 51 | 22.6 ± 3.8 | 55 | |||
| Education level | Low | 27.9 ± 3.9 | 72 | 0.155 | 22.8 ± 3.3 | 74 | 0.461 |
| Medium | 27.0 ± 3.0 | 154 | 22.5 ± 4.2 | 157 | |||
| High | 26.7 ± 3.0 | 33 | 22.5 ± 3.5 | 33 | |||