Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32527314›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2020

Patient feedback to improve quality of patient-centred care in public hospitals: a systematic review of the evidence.

Eunice Wong, Felix Mavondo, Jane Fisher

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

65 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Autism in Viet Nam: A systematic scoping review.Autism : the international journal of research and practice · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Improving oral health service delivery: the patient perspective.Primary health care research & development · 2025
    Article
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Eunice WongBehaviourWorks Australia, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. eunice.wong@monash.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9274-7547
Felix MavondoDepartment of Marketing, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Jane FisherSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo review systematically the published literature relating to interventions informed by patient feedback for improvement to quality of care in hospital settings.

methodsA systematic search was performed in the CINAHL, EMBASE, PsyInfo, MEDLINE, Cochrane Libraries, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases for English-language publications from January 2008 till October 2018 using a combination of MeSH-terms and keywords related to patient feedback, quality of health care, patient-centred care, program evaluation and public hospitals. The quality appraisal of the studies was conducted with the MMAT and the review protocol was published on PROSPERO. Narrative synthesis was used for evaluation of the effectiveness of the interventions on patient-centred quality of care.

resultsTwenty papers reporting 20 studies met the inclusion criteria, of these, there was one cluster RCT, three before and after studies, four cross-sectional studies and 12 organisational case studies. In the quality appraisal, 11 studies were rated low, five medium and only two of high methodological quality. Two studies could not be appraised because insufficient information was provided. The papers reported on interventions to improve communication with patients, professional practices in continuity of care and care transitions, responsiveness to patients, patient education, the physical hospital environment, use of patient feedback by staff and on quality improvement projects. However, quantitative outcomes were only provided for interventions in the areas of communication, professional practices in continuity of care and care transitions and responsiveness to patients. Multi-component interventions which targeted both individual and organisational levels were more effective than single interventions. Outcome measures reported in the studies were patient experiences across various diverse dimensions including, communication, responsiveness, coordination of and access to care, or patient satisfaction with waiting times, physical environment and staff courtesy.

conclusionOverall, it was found that there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of interventions, because few have been tested in well-designed trials, very few papers described the theoretical basis on which the intervention had been developed. Further research is needed to understand the choice and mechanism of action of the interventions used to improve patient experience.

Indexed as

Hospitals, PublicPatient SatisfactionQuality ImprovementCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPatient-Centered CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicPatient-centred carePatient experiencePatient feedbackPublic hospitalsQuality improvementQuality of care

Identifiers

PMID32527314
PMCPMC7291559

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.