Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20940212›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2010

Patients' experience and satisfaction in primary care: secondary analysis using multilevel modelling.

Chris Salisbury, Marc Wallace, Alan A Montgomery

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

76 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Chris SalisburyUniversity of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2AA, UK. c.salisbury@bristol.ac.uk
Marc Wallace
Alan A Montgomery

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore whether responses to questions in surveys of patients that purport to assess the performance of general practices or doctors reflect differences between practices, doctors, or the patients themselves.

designSecondary analysis of data from a study of access to general practice, combining data from a survey of patients with information about practice organisation and doctors consulted, and using multilevel modelling at practice, doctor, and patient level.

settingNine primary care trusts in England.

participants4573 patients who consulted 150 different doctors in 27 practices.

main outcome measuresOverall satisfaction; experience of wait for an appointment; reported access to care; satisfaction with communication skills.

resultsThe experience based measure of wait for an appointment was more discriminating between practices (practice level accounted for 20.2% (95% confidence interval 9.1% to 31.3%) of variance) than was the overall satisfaction measure (practice level accounted for 4.6% (1.6% to 7.6%) of variance). Only 6.3% (3.8% to 8.9%) of the variance in the doctors' communication skills measure was due to differences between doctors; 92.4% (88.5% to 96.4%) of the variance occurred at the level of the patient (including differences between patients' perceptions and random variation). At least 79% of the variance on all measures occurred at the level of the patient, and patients' age, sex, ethnicity, and housing and employment status explained some of this variation. However, adjustment for patients' characteristics made very little difference to practices' scores or the ranking of individual practices.

conclusionsAnalyses of surveys of patients should take account of the hierarchical nature of the data by using multilevel models. Measures related to patients' experience discriminate more effectively between practices than do measures of general satisfaction. Surveys of patients' satisfaction fail to distinguish effectively between individual doctors because most of the variation in doctors' reported performance is due to differences between patients and random error rather than differences between doctors. Although patients' reports of satisfaction and experience are systematically related to patients' characteristics such as age and sex, the effect of adjusting practices' scores for the characteristics of their patients is small.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionClinical CompetenceCommunicationEnglandFamily PracticeHealth Services AccessibilityHumansPhysician-Patient RelationsSurveys and QuestionnairesWaiting Lists

Identifiers

PMID20940212
PMCPMC2954274

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.