ArticlePloS one2024
Patient satisfaction and patient accessibility in a small fiber neuropathy diagnostic service in the Netherlands: A single-center, prospective, survey-based cohort study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSmall fiber neuropathy (SFN) is a common cause of neuropathic pain in peripheral neuropathies. Good accessibility of diagnostics and treatment is necessary for an accurate diagnosis and treatment of SFN. Evidence is lacking on the quality performance of the diagnostic SFN service in the Netherlands. Our aim was to determine the patient satisfaction and -accessibility of the diagnostic SFN service, and to identify areas for improvement.
methodsIn a single-center, prospective, survey-based cohort study, 100 visiting patients were asked to fill in the SFN patient satisfaction questionnaire (SFN-PSQ), with 10 domains and 51 items. Cut-off point for improvement was defined as ≥ 25% dissatisfaction on an item. A chi-square test and linear regression analyses was used for significant differences and associations of patient satisfaction.
resultsFrom November 2020 to May 2021, 98 patients with SFN-related complaints filled in the online SFN-PSQ within 20 minutes. In 84% of the patients SFN was confirmed, average age was 55.1 (52.5-57.8) years and 67% was female. High satisfaction was seen in the domains 'Waiting List Period', Chest X-ray', 'Consultation with the Doctor or Nurse Practitioner (NP)', 'Separate Consultation with the Doctor or NP about Psychological Symptoms', and 'General' of the SFN service. Overall average patient satisfaction score was 8.7 (IQR 8-10) on a 1-to-10 rating scale. Main area for improvement was shortening the 8-week period for receiving the results of the diagnostic testing (p < 0.05). General health status was statistically significant associated with patient satisfaction (p < 0.05).
conclusionA good reflection of the high patient satisfaction and -accessibility of the SFN-service is shown, with important points for improvement. These results could help hospitals widely to optimize the logistic and diagnostic pathway of SFN analysis, benchmarking patient satisfaction results among the hospitals, and to improve the quality of care of comparable SFN services.
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.