ReviewThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2007
Measuring patient satisfaction for the Quality and Outcomes Framework.
Review in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic literature review of patient self-assessment instruments concerning quality of primary care in multiprofessional clinics.Family practice · 2022Pooled it
- Patient satisfaction and loyalty in Japanese primary care: a cross-sectional study.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Evaluating Patient-Centered Mobile Health Technologies: Definitions, Methodologies, and Outcomes.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
- Relatives of deceased patients with metastatic lung cancer's views on the achievement of treatment goals and the choice to start treatment: a structured telephone interview study.BMC palliative care · 2020Article
- Patient satisfaction with a teleradiology service in general practice.BMC family practice · 2016Article
- Quality improvement and person-centredness: a participatory mixed methods study to develop the 'always event' concept for primary care.BMJ open · 2015Article
- Comparative analysis of quality assurance in health care delivery and higher medical education.Advances in medical education and practice · 2012Article
- Patient involvement in patient safety: Protocol for developing an intervention using patient reports of organisational safety and patient incident reporting.BMC health services research · 2011Article
- Experiencing patient-experience surveys: a qualitative study of the accounts of GPs.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2011Article
- Determinants of patient satisfaction with ophthalmic services.BMC research notes · 2011Article
- Patients' perceptions and experiences of transitions in diabetes care: a longitudinal qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2009Article
- The General Practice Assessment Questionnaire (GPAQ) - development and psychometric characteristics.BMC family practice · 2008Article
- Measuring patient satisfaction.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2008Article
- GPAQ.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2007Article
- Article missed published papers on GPAQ validity.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2007Article
- Measuring performance quality in general practice: is international harmonization desirable?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The general medical services (GMS) contract Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) awards up to 70 points for measuring patient satisfaction with either the Improving Practices Questionnaire (IPQ) or the General Practice Assessment Questionnaire (GPAQ). The usefulness of data collected depends crucially on the validity and reliability of the measurement instrument. The literature was reviewed to assess the validity and reliability of these questionnaires. The literature was searched for peer-review publications that assessed the reliability and validity of the IPQ and GPAQ, using online literature databases and hand-searching of references up to June 2006. One paper claimed to assess the validity and reliability of the IPQ. No paper reported the reliability and validity of the GPAQ, but three papers assessed an earlier version (the GPAS). No published evidence could be found that the IPQ, GPAQ, or GPAS have been validated against external criteria. The GPAS was found to have acceptable reliability and test-retest reliability. Neither of the instruments mandated by the GMS contract has been formally assessed for reliability: their reproducibility remains unknown. The validation of the two questionnaires approved by the QOF to assess patient satisfaction with general practice appears to be suboptimal. It is recommended that future patient experience surveys are piloted for validity and reliability before being implemented widely.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17761061PMC2151789What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.