Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21235808›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2011

Determinants of patient satisfaction with ophthalmic services.

Hossain Ziaei, Marzieh Katibeh, Armen Eskandari, Monir Mirzadeh, Zahra Rabbanikhah, Mohammad Ali Javadi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Hossain ZiaeiOphthalmic Research Center, Labbafinejad Medical Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. mdkatibeh@yahoo.com.
Marzieh Katibeh
Armen Eskandari
Monir Mirzadeh
Zahra Rabbanikhah
Mohammad Ali Javadi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis cross-sectional study was conducted during summer 2008 at an academic ophthalmic hospital to assess patient satisfaction with care services and examine the impact of different dimensions on overall satisfaction.

findingsClients of ophthalmic services were selected by systematic random sampling. Overall satisfaction was measured as the primary outcome using a validated patient satisfaction questionnaire (PSQ-18). Different domains were evaluated using PSQ-18 (technical quality, interpersonal manner, communication, financial aspects, time spent for patients, convenience and accessibility); an additional domain, physical setting of the hospital, was evaluated by complementary questions. A general linear model was used to assess the adjusted impact of each quality dimension on the overall satisfaction. Accessibility and technical quality had the strongest association with the overall satisfaction. This regression model could predict an overall satisfaction of 60%.

conclusionsIn comparable settings, if care providers wish to improve the quality of health services from a patients' perspective, they should give priority to improving accessibility and technical quality. Further studies are recommended to discover complementary predictors in formation of overall satisfaction. PREVIOUS PUBLICATION: Some parts of this article are translated form Farsi originally published in Bina Journal of Ophthalmology. (2009; 14 (3): 289-297). The original work is at: http://binajournal.org/index.php/bina/article/view/96.

Identifiers

PMID21235808
PMCPMC3037326

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.