SynthesisHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2022
The ultimate question? Evaluating the use of Net Promoter Score in healthcare: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 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
86 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 148 citations in OpenAlex.
- The ultimate question? Evaluating the use of Net Promoter Score in healthcare: A systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Pooled it
- Safety, feasibility and preliminary effects of Atalante exoskeleton-assisted gait training in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a prospective ABA pilot study.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Trial
- Direct Digital Referrals From Prenatal Care and WIC Enrollment Among Pregnant Individuals: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Digital Behavioral Therapy Improves Outcome in Patients With Axial Spondyloarthritis and Persistent Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Arthritis care & research · 2026Trial
- Hospital-Level Care at Home for Adults Living in Rural Settings: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Experience of heart failure patients in mobilization with virtual reality: mixed methods study.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2025Trial
- Patient-Clinician Communication Interventions Across Multiple Primary Care Sites: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA health forum · 2024Trial
- AI-Generated Draft Replies Integrated Into Health Records and Physicians' Electronic Communication.JAMA network open · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Real-Time Physical Activity Self-Monitoring in Patients Hospitalized for Cardiology Care: Interrupted Time Series Analysis.JMIR cardio · 2026Article
- Development of a Client Experience of Care Metric to Measure Person-Centered Care for Injectable Contraceptive Clients in Lilongwe, Malawi.Studies in family planning · 2026Article
- Patient-Reported Outcomes After Venous Recanalization in Post-Thrombotic Syndrome: A Multicentre Prospective Study.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Article
- Assessing patient and client safety culture across integrated health and social care services: a cross-sectional study in Finland.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- User Experiences of Electronic Controlled Substance Surveillance Among Health Care Professionals in a Large Academic Hospital: Cross-Sectional Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Exploring the Feasibility, Acceptability, and Safety of a 4:3 Intermittent Fasting Weight Loss Program Among Stage I-III Breast Cancer Survivors With Overweight or Obesity: Protocol for a 6-Month Proof-of-Concept Feasibility Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluating the Acceptability of Virtual Preventive Genetic Counseling Supporting Adult Primary Care Practices.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Feasibility of a Multicomponent Frailty Intervention During Post-Acute Rehabilitation in Skilled Nursing Facilities.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2026Article
- Engagement, Acceptability, and Impact of a Parenting App to Support Infant Sleep and Parent Well-Being: Quasi-Experimental Study.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2026Article
- Implementing custom PRO and NPS tools in private practice: balancing simplicity and clinical value in a retrospective study.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient experience is a complex phenomenon that presents challenges for appropriate and effective measurement. With the lack of a standardized measurement approach, efforts have been made to simplify the evaluation and reporting of patient experience by using single-item measures, such as the Net Promoter Score (NPS). Although NPS is widely used in many countries, there has been little research to validate its effectiveness and value in the healthcare setting. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the evidence that is available about the application of NPS in healthcare settings.
methodsStudies were identified using words and synonyms that relate to NPS, which was applied to five electronic databases: Medline, CINAHL, Proquest, Business Journal Premium, and Scopus. Titles and abstracts between January 2005 and September 2020 were screened for relevance, with the inclusion of quantitative and qualitative studies in the healthcare setting that evaluated the use of NPS to measure patient experience.
resultsTwelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Four studies identified benefits associated with using NPS, such as ease of use, high completion rates and being well-understood by a range of patients. Three studies questioned the usefulness of the NPS recommendation question in healthcare settings, particularly when respondents are unable to select their service provider. The free-text comments section, which provides additional detail and contextual cues, was viewed positively by patients and staff in 4 of 12 studies. According to these studies, NPS can be influenced by a wide range of variables, such as age, condition/disease, intervention and cultural variation; therefore, caution should be taken when using NPS for comparisons. Four studies concluded that NPS adds minimal value to healthcare improvement.
conclusionThe literature suggests that many of the proposed benefits of using NPS are not supported by research. NPS may not be sufficient as a stand-alone metric and may be better used in conjunction with a larger survey. NPS may be more suited for use in certain healthcare settings, for example, where patients have a choice of provider. Staff attitudes towards the use of NPS for patient surveying are mixed. More research is needed to validate the use of NPS as a primary metric of patient experience. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Consumer representatives were provided with the research findings and their feedback was sought about the study. Consumers commented that they found the results to be useful and felt that this study highlighted important considerations when NPS data is used to evaluate patient experience.
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.