ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2010
Patients' experience and satisfaction in primary care: secondary analysis using multilevel modelling.
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.
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
76 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic literature review of patient self-assessment instruments concerning quality of primary care in multiprofessional clinics.Family practice · 2022Pooled it
- Exploring the impact and use of patients' feedback about their care experiences in general practice settings-a realist synthesis.Family practice · 2018Pooled it
- Patient experience of NHS health checks: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis.BMJ open · 2017Pooled it
- Trial
- Comparative satisfaction of receiving medical abortion service from nurses and auxiliary nurse-midwives or doctors in Nepal: results of a randomized trial.Reproductive health · 2017Trial
- Exploring demographic and lifestyle associations with patient experience following telephone triage by a primary care doctor or nurse: secondary analyses from a cluster randomised controlled trial.BMJ quality & safety · 2015Trial
- Are practice nurse-led patient consultations acceptable for the general population in Germany? Results from a population-based survey.The European journal of general practice · 2026Article
- Case-mix adjustments of patient reported experience measures in general practice: variations between Norwegian municipalities.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- Article
- Development and Validation Study of a Short-Form Version of the Inpatient Experience with Nursing Care Scale.Journal of patient experience · 2026Article
- A scoping review protocol for the application of intersectionality in primary care research.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Observational
- Article
- The people-centered care and inpatients' perceived experience in China: a nationwide cross-sectional study.International journal for equity in health · 2025Article
- Unlocking Patient and Professional Value Through Patient Experience: Preliminary Development and Validation of the Patient Experience Assessment of In-Center Hemodialysis (PEACHD) Survey.Journal of patient experience · 2025Article
- Development and Validation of the Patient Experience Assessment Scale (PXAS) in Tertiary Care Hospital - Oman.Journal of patient experience · 2025Article
- Article
- Implementation of the four habits model in intermediate care services in Norway: a process evaluation.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Development and Psychometric Test of the Inpatients Experiences Measurement Scale (IEMS).Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- Patient perspective on task shifting from general practitioners to medical practice assistants - a quantitative survey in Germany.BMC primary care · 2023Article
16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What 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.