Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27124310›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2017

Doctors' engagements with patient experience surveys in primary and secondary care: a qualitative study.

Conor Farrington, Jenni Burt, Olga Boiko, John Campbell, Martin Roland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. A Taxonomy for Health Information Systems.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

5 authors.

Conor FarringtonCambridge Centre for Health Services Research (CCHSR), Institute of Public Health, Forvie Site, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK.
Jenni BurtCambridge Centre for Health Services Research (CCHSR), Institute of Public Health, Forvie Site, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0037-274X
Olga BoikoDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, King's College London, London, UK.
John CampbellUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Martin RolandCambridge Centre for Health Services Research (CCHSR), Institute of Public Health, Forvie Site, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0608-10050
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient experience surveys are increasingly important in the measurement of, and attempts to improve, health-care quality. To date, little research has focused upon doctors' attitudes to surveys which give them personalized feedback.

aimThis paper explores doctors' perceptions of patient experience surveys in primary and secondary care settings in order to deepen understandings of how doctors view the plausibility of such surveys. DESIGN, SETTING AND

participantsWe conducted a qualitative study with doctors in two regions of England, involving in-depth semi-structured interviews with doctors working in primary care (n = 21) and secondary care (n = 20) settings. The doctors in both settings had recently received individualized feedback from patient experience surveys.

findingsDoctors in both settings express strong personal commitments to incorporating patient feedback in quality improvement efforts. However, they also concurrently express strong negative views about the credibility of survey findings and patients' motivations and competence in providing feedback. Thus, individual doctors demonstrate contradictory views regarding the plausibility of patient surveys, leading to complex, varied and on balance negative engagements with patient feedback. DISCUSSION: Doctors' contradictory views towards patient experience surveys are likely to limit the impact of such surveys in quality improvement initiatives in primary and secondary care. We highlight the need for 'sensegiving' initiatives (i.e. attempts to influence perceptions by communicating particular ideas, narratives and visions) to engage with doctors regarding the plausibility of patient experience surveys.

conclusionThis study highlights the importance of engaging with doctors' views about patient experience surveys when developing quality improvement initiatives.

Indexed as

FeedbackPatient SatisfactionPrimary Health CareEnglandFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansMaleQualitative ResearchQuality ImprovementSecondary Health CareSurveys and Questionnairespatient experience surveysprimary carequality improvementsecondary care

Identifiers

PMID27124310
PMCPMC5433536

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.