ArticlePloS one2023
Topics most predictive of favorable overall assessment in outpatient radiology.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reply.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2025Article
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
backgroundPatients' subjective experiences during clinical interactions may affect their engagement in healthcare, and better understanding of the issues patients consider most important may help improve service quality and patient-staff relationships. While diagnostic imaging is a growing component of healthcare utilization, few studies have quantitatively and systematically assessed what patients deem most relevant in radiology settings. To elucidate factors driving patient satisfaction in outpatient radiology, we derived quantitative models to identify items most predictive of patients' overall assessment of radiology encounters.
methodsPress-Ganey survey data (N = 69,319) collected over a 9-year period at a single institution were retrospectively analyzed, with each item response dichotomized as "favorable" or "unfavorable." Multiple logistic regression analyses were performed on 18 binarized Likert items to compute odds ratios (OR) for those question items significantly predicting Overall Rating of Care or Likelihood of Recommending. In a secondary analysis to identify topics more relevant to radiology than other encounter types, items significantly more predictive of concordant ratings in radiology compared to non-radiology visits were also identified.
resultsAmong radiology survey respondents, top predictors of Overall Rating and Likelihood of Recommending were items addressing patient concerns or complaints (OR 6.8 and 4.9, respectively) and sensitivity to patient needs (OR 4.7 and 4.5, respectively). When comparing radiology and non-radiology visits, the top items more predictive for radiology included unfavorable responses to helpfulness of registration desk personnel (OR 1.4-1.6), comfort of waiting areas (OR 1.4), and ease of obtaining an appointment at the desired time (OR 1.4).
conclusionsItems related to patient-centered empathic communication were the most predictive of favorable overall ratings among radiology outpatients, while underperformance in logistical issues related to registration, scheduling, and waiting areas may have greater adverse impact on radiology than non-radiology encounters. Findings may offer potential targets for future quality improvement efforts.
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.