ArticleBMJ open2014
Patient evaluation of hospital outcomes: an analysis of open-ended comments from extreme clusters in a national survey.
Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Significant potential of melatonin therapy in Parkinson's disease - a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Pooled it
- Validation of the PREM-MSZ resulting in the PREM-Q8: a generic patient-reported experience measure for outpatient care.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), coercion, and mental health outcomes in psychiatric inpatient care: a national mixed-methods study comparing immigrant and majority populations.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- "Do It by Myself" or Autonomy, Participation, and Assistive Devices and Technology Needs of Children and Youth With Disabilities: Text Mining Analysis of a National Survey in France.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- "Having providers who are trained and have empathy is life-saving": Improving primary care communication through thematic analysis with ChatGPT and human expertise.PEC innovation · 2025Article
- Multimorbidity and patient experience with general practice: A national cross-sectional survey in Norway.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- The experience of hospital care for older surgical patients and their carers: A mixed-methods study.Australasian journal on ageing · 2023Article
- Web-Based Public Ratings of General Practitioners in Norway: Validation Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Overview of Chatbots with special emphasis on artificial intelligence-enabled ChatGPT in medical science.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2023Review
- Qualitatively exploring the impact of a relationship-centered communication skills training program in improving patient perceptions of care.PEC innovation · 2022Article
- Patient experiences with general practitioners: psychometric performance of the generic PEQ-GP instrument among patients with chronic conditions.Family practice · 2022Article
- What can we learn from the experiences and expectations of patients on growing waiting lists for planned care in the COVID-19 pandemic?Bone & joint open · 2021Article
- Mapping Drug Prescription, Polypharmacy, and Pharmaceutical Spending in Older Adults in Iran: A Multilevel Analysis Based on Claims Data.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2021Article
- Can the UK 24-item family satisfaction in the intensive care unit questionnaire be used to evaluate quality improvement strategies aimed at improving family satisfaction with the ICU? A qualitative study.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2020Article
- The value of Facebook in nation-wide hospital quality assessment: a national mixed-methods study in Norway.BMJ quality & safety · 2020Article
- KLOSURE: Closing in on open-ended patient questionnaires with text mining.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2019Article
- Investigating the meaning of 'good' or 'very good' patient evaluations of care in English general practice: a mixed methods study.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Investigating the Potential Contribution of Patient Rating Sites to Hospital Supervision: Exploratory Results From an Interview Study in the Netherlands.Journal of medical Internet research · 2016Article
- The Universal Patient Centeredness Questionnaire: reliability and validity of a one-page questionnaire following surveys in three patient populations.Patient related outcome measures · 2016Article
- The Universal Patient Centeredness Questionnaire: scaling approaches to reduce positive skew.Patient preference and adherence · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesA recent study identified patients in six distinct response groups based on their evaluations of outcomes related to overall satisfaction, malpractice and benefit of treatment. This study validates the response clusters by analysing and comparing open-ended comments from the extreme positive and extreme negative response groups.
designQualitative content analysis.
settingData from open-ended comment fields provided by patients who completed a national patient-experience survey carried out in Norway in 2011. 10 514 patients responded to the questionnaire and 3233 provided comments. A random sample of 50 open-ended comments from respondents representing cluster 1 ('excellent services'), cluster 5 ('services have clear improvement needs') and outliers ('very poor services') was reviewed.
results3 distinct patient profiles were identified. More than half of the comments in cluster 1 included descriptions of positive healthcare experiences, one addressed patient safety issues. Only 1 of the comments in cluster 5 was positive, and 12 were related to safety. All comments from the outliers were negative, and more than three-quarters reported experiences related to malpractice or adverse events. Recurring themes did not differ significantly between the three respondent groups, but significant differences were found for the descriptions and severity of the experiences.
conclusionsPatients in negative response groups had distinct and much poorer healthcare descriptions than those in the extreme positive group, supporting the interpretation of quality differences between these groups. Further research should assess ways of combining statistical cluster information and qualitative comments, which could be used for local quality improvement and public reporting.
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.