Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36970853›Full record

ArticleHospital pediatrics2023

Parents Have More to Say: Comments From the Child HCAHPS Single Question Versus a Narrative Item Set.

Denise D Quigley, Zachary Predmore

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Hospital pediatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Denise D QuigleyRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California.
Zachary PredmoreRAND Corporation, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems V (CAHPS V)U18HS025920 · AHRQ · RAND CORPORATION · PI HAYS, RONALD DALE · 2017 to 2021
$5.6M
AHRQ HHS U18 HS025920
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesNarrative comments from the Child Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey from a single open-ended question are specific enough to make improvements (ie, actionable). A multiitem set might yield more insights. We compare comments from the single-item Child Hospital CAHPS and the 6-item beta version Narrative Item Set (NIS).

methodsThe Child HCAHPS NIS was piloted 2021 to 2022 at an urban children's hospital that fielded the Child HCAHPS survey since 2017. We analyzed 382 NIS comments (n = 77 parents and guardians) and compared them to single-item comments.

resultsNIS respondents wrote nearly 6 times the word count compared with respondents presented with a single item, with 75% of NIS respondents providing narrative to 5 or 6 NIS items. Single-item comments were more positive (57% vs 39% NIS), yet most (61%) NIS comments included at least 1 negative remark (vs 43% single-item). Eighty-two percent of NIS comments included content on the Child HCAHPS survey (vs 51% single-item). The most common Child HCAHPS topics in NIS narratives were about being kept informed of child's care and whether doctors treated respondents with courtesy and respect. More NIS comments were deemed actionable (69% vs 39% single-item), with 1 NIS item - what a parent wished had gone differently- eliciting the most-actionable narrative.

conclusionsThe multi-item NIS elicited high percentages of comments with sufficient detail to make improvements. A large NIS demonstration is needed to assess how quality leaders and frontline staff use NIS comments to improve inpatient pediatric care.

Indexed as

HospitalizationPatient SatisfactionChildHumansNarrationParentsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID36970853
PMCPMC11161037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.