Trial reportPloS one2019
Comparing patients and families perceptions of satisfaction and predictors of overall satisfaction in the emergency department.
Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors Influencing Patient Satisfaction with Healthcare Services in Poland.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Review
- Review
- Article
- Obtaining feedback from patients and their family in the emergency department.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2023Article
- Usability Testing of a Patient-Centered Mobile Health App for Supporting and Guiding the Pediatric Emergency Department Patient Journey: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2022Article
- Emergency department consultations for respiratory symptoms revisited: exploratory investigation of longitudinal trends in patients' perspective on care, health care utilization, and general and mental health, from a multicenter study in Berlin, Germany.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- How individual social capital affects residents' satisfaction with medical services: Based on the evidence from urban residents in China.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
objectiveThe aim of the study was to investigate factors that best predict patient's satisfaction with their ED visit, as well as examine whether patients and their families perceived the factors related to satisfaction similarly.
methodsThis is a retrospective study where secondary data analysis was done on patient satisfaction data collected over three quarters for quality improvement purposes. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on the data from the first quarter to identify the factor structure, followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the rest of the data to confirm the EFA factor structure. A structural equation model (SEM) was fitted where the factors predicted overall satisfaction with the ED visit. Finally, measurement invariance was conducted to examine if patients and families perceived the factors related to ED services alike.
resultsTwo factors were found to be predictive of satisfaction: clinical team and system processes. The SEM showed that system process was a statistically significant predictor of overall satisfaction, while clinical team predicted overall satisfaction to a smaller extent. Multi-group CFA showed that the factor structure fitted neither family nor patient groups adequately. The instrument did not exhibit partial invariance.
conclusionThis study found that system process was the best predictor of overall satisfaction. Furthermore, this study showed that the same instrument might not reliably compare the perceptions of patients and families.
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.