ArticleCureus2020
Assessment of Patient Satisfaction in a Military and Public Hospital: A Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Learning from the past: a scoping review of hospital disaster preparedness assessment.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- A cross-sectional study on the relationship between length of stay and patient satisfaction based on the SERVQUAL model.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Patient Satisfaction with Primary Health Care Services in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.International journal of general medicine · 2025Article
- Military personnel's satisfaction with antiretroviral services in Namibia: A cross-sectional study.Journal of public health in Africa · 2025Article
- Struggle with traumatic spinal cord injury: a need for improved surgical and rehabilitation services.Neurosurgical review · 2024Article
- Assessment of parental satisfaction with paediatric health services in public sector tertiary hospitals within a low-income setting using Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ-18).BMJ paediatrics open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent times, the assessment of patient satisfaction has become an essential tool for measuring the effectiveness of healthcare delivery. However, not a lot of work has been done in Pakistan, even less so in comparing it across different hospital systems in the country. This research aims to fill that gap and be the first to compare satisfaction levels in a military and public hospital.
objectiveTo assess patient satisfaction in different hospital systems of Pakistan and compare their outcomes.
methodsA cross-sectional study was undertaken between October 2019 and April 2020 among 376 patients; 193 from Combined Military Hospital, Lahore (CMH) and 183 from Jinnah Hospital, Lahore. The questionnaire used for the study was the Short-Form Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire - 18, and convenience sampling was used to select participants. Data was entered and analysed on Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) version 21 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).
resultsThe majority of participants were male (71.2%), entitled to free healthcare (58.4%), and employed (59.7%). It was found that CMH Lahore scored better in all seven domains of patient satisfaction (p<0.03 individually), with significant differences in six: general satisfaction, interpersonal manner, communication, financial aspects, time spent with the doctors, and accessibility and convenience. Overall, waiting times and entitlement to free healthcare were established to be major determinants of satisfaction, with CMH having shorter waiting times and providing free treatment to a larger number of patients. The mode waiting time in CMH was 1 - 15 minutes (44.9%) as compared to 15 - 30 minutes (50.9%) in Jinnah Hospital. Additionally, 78.2% of patients were entitled to free healthcare in CMH, compared to 35.5% in Jinnah Hospital. Conclusion: Patient satisfaction was found to be significantly better in CMH in six out of seven domains studied. Further work needs to be done in its assessment, as well as in its role in healthcare policies.
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.