Enkhjargal Batbaatar1, Javkhlanbayar Dorjdagva2, Ariunbat Luvsannyam3, Matteo Mario Savino4, Pietro Amenta5. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Mongolian National University of Medical Sciences, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia; Faculty of Economy and Business Sciences, University of Sannio, Benevento, Italy. 2. Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Mongolian National University of Medical Sciences, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia; The Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland. 3. Department of Business Management, Ulaanbaatar University, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. 4. Department of Engineering, University of Sannio, Benevento, Italy. 5. Faculty of Economy and Business Sciences, University of Sannio, Benevento, Italy.
Abstract
AIM: A large number of studies have addressed the detection of patient satisfaction determinants, and the results are still inconclusive. Furthermore, it is known that contradicting evidence exists across patient satisfaction studies. This article is the second part of a two-part series of research with a goal to review a current conceptual framework of patient satisfaction for further operationalisation procedures. The aim of this work was to systematically identify and review evidence regarding determinants of patient satisfaction between 1980 and 2014, and to seek the reasons for contradicting results in relationships between determinants and patient satisfaction in the literature to design a further robust measurement system for patient satisfaction. METHOD: This systematic review followed the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus in October 2014. Studies published in full in peer reviewed journals between January 1980 and August 2014 and in the English language were included. We included 109 articles for the synthesis. RESULTS: We found several number of determinants of patient satisfaction investigated in a wide diversity of studies. However, study results were varied due to no globally accepted formulation of patient satisfaction and measurement system. CONCLUSIONS: Health care service quality indicators were the most influential determinants of patient satisfaction across the studies. Among them, health providers' interpersonal care quality was the essential determinant of patient satisfaction. Sociodemographic characteristics were the most varied in the review. The strength and directions of associations with patient satisfaction were found inconsistent. Therefore, person-related characteristics should be considered to be the potential determinants and confounders simultaneously. The selected studies were not able to show all potential characteristics which may have had effects on satisfaction. There is a need for more studies on how cultural, behavioural, and socio-demographic differences affect patient satisfaction, using a standardised questionnaire.
AIM: A large number of studies have addressed the detection of patient satisfaction determinants, and the results are still inconclusive. Furthermore, it is known that contradicting evidence exists across patient satisfaction studies. This article is the second part of a two-part series of research with a goal to review a current conceptual framework of patient satisfaction for further operationalisation procedures. The aim of this work was to systematically identify and review evidence regarding determinants of patient satisfaction between 1980 and 2014, and to seek the reasons for contradicting results in relationships between determinants and patient satisfaction in the literature to design a further robust measurement system for patient satisfaction. METHOD: This systematic review followed the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus in October 2014. Studies published in full in peer reviewed journals between January 1980 and August 2014 and in the English language were included. We included 109 articles for the synthesis. RESULTS: We found several number of determinants of patient satisfaction investigated in a wide diversity of studies. However, study results were varied due to no globally accepted formulation of patient satisfaction and measurement system. CONCLUSIONS: Health care service quality indicators were the most influential determinants of patient satisfaction across the studies. Among them, health providers' interpersonal care quality was the essential determinant of patient satisfaction. Sociodemographic characteristics were the most varied in the review. The strength and directions of associations with patient satisfaction were found inconsistent. Therefore, person-related characteristics should be considered to be the potential determinants and confounders simultaneously. The selected studies were not able to show all potential characteristics which may have had effects on satisfaction. There is a need for more studies on how cultural, behavioural, and socio-demographic differences affect patient satisfaction, using a standardised questionnaire.
Authors: Breann K Tisano; Paul A Nakonezny; Bruno S Gross; J Riley Martinez; Joel E Wells Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Margaret E Kruk; Anna D Gage; Catherine Arsenault; Keely Jordan; Hannah H Leslie; Sanam Roder-DeWan; Olusoji Adeyi; Pierre Barker; Bernadette Daelmans; Svetlana V Doubova; Mike English; Ezequiel García-Elorrio; Frederico Guanais; Oye Gureje; Lisa R Hirschhorn; Lixin Jiang; Edward Kelley; Ephrem Tekle Lemango; Jerker Liljestrand; Address Malata; Tanya Marchant; Malebona Precious Matsoso; John G Meara; Manoj Mohanan; Youssoupha Ndiaye; Ole F Norheim; K Srinath Reddy; Alexander K Rowe; Joshua A Salomon; Gagan Thapa; Nana A Y Twum-Danso; Muhammad Pate Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 26.763
Authors: Shimrit Keddem; Aneeza Z Agha; Judith A Long; Becky Shasha; Leslie R M Hausmann; Judy A Shea Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-10-26 Impact factor: 5.128