Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37936112›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2023

Measuring patient satisfaction with four items: validity of the client satisfaction questionnaire 4 in an outpatient population.

Henrik Pedersen, Tatiana Skliarova, C Clifford Attkisson, Mariela L Lara-Cabrera, Audun Havnen

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07733973 (Evaluating the Effectiveness, Acceptability and Feasibility of a Communication and Care Coordinator), which is not on this map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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.

NCT07733973 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Evaluating the Effectiveness, Acceptability and Feasibility of a Communication and Care Coordinator (CCC) Model in Facilitating Serious Illness Communication (SIC) and Care in Patients With Cancer

TypeinterventionalSponsorNational Cancer Centre, SingaporeRan2026 to 2029Enrolled560ConditionsCancerArmsCCC Intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. A pilot randomized controlled trial ofWomen's health (London, England)
    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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Henrik PedersenDivision of Psychiatry, Nidaros Community Mental Health Centre, St. Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway. Henrik.Pedersen@ntnu.no.
Tatiana SkliarovaDepartment of Mental Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
C Clifford AttkissonDepartment of Psychiatry and Graduate Division, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Mariela L Lara-CabreraDepartment of Mental Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Audun HavnenDivision of Psychiatry, Nidaros Community Mental Health Centre, St. Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Norwegian University of Science and Technology · NOSt Olav's University Hospital · NOUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPatient satisfaction with mental health services has for several decades been considered an important component when evaluating service quality. It is often assessed in the context of monitoring quality of care, developing or evaluating newly implemented interventions or changes in practice. Because of this, patient satisfaction questionnaires are often added to longer questionnaire batteries, and shorter questionnaires are preferred to prevent respondent fatigue and non-compliance and to secure easy implementation. However, most studies use unvalidated patient satisfaction measures, making comparisons between studies difficult. Validation studies of short patient satisfaction measures are therefore warranted.

methodsThe primary aim was to examine the construct validity and internal reliability of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-4 (CSQ-4) in a Norwegian outpatient mental health setting. A total of 467 patients were recruited from an outpatient psychiatric care clinic in Central Norway. The secondary aim was to examine an earlier proposed cutoff for classifying dissatisfied patients in this new population. A principal component analysis was conducted to evaluate factor structure, correlation analyses were conducted to test for predicted relationships, and Cronbach's alpha was calculated to examine internal reliability.

resultsThe CSQ-4 showed a clear unidimensional structure with one factor explaining 80% of its variance. Its internal reliability was very high, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.92. As hypothesised this study found no statistically significant sex differences in satisfaction and no statistically significant association between age and satisfaction. Positive changes in symptoms during treatment and higher post-treatment functional impairment were associated with higher patient-reported treatment satisfaction scores, which indicates good construct validity.

conclusionThis is the first study to evaluate the CSQ-4 in a psychiatric population. The CSQ-4 demonstrated good structural validity and internal reliability and was correlated with outcome variables in terms of symptom change and post-treatment functioning. In sum, this indicates that the CSQ-4 is a good short alternative for evaluating patient satisfaction in routine outpatient mental health care.

Indexed as

OutpatientsPatient SatisfactionFemaleHumansMalePersonal SatisfactionPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesClient satisfaction questionnaireMental healthPatient-reported experiencePatient satisfactionQuality of careQuality of mental healthcareSatisfaction with treatmentValidity

Identifiers

PMID37936112
PMCPMC10630992
OpenAlexW4388453544

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.