ReviewJournal of patient-centered research and reviews2024
How the CAHPS Clinician and Group Patient Experience Survey Data Have Been Used in Research: A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of patient-centered research and reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of an Adaptive mHealth Intervention on Improving Patient-Provider Health Care Communication: Secondary Analysis of the DIAMANTE Trial.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Trial
- Seen and Heard: Gender Identity and Concordance Shapes Caregiver Experiences in Pediatric Orthopaedics.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2026Article
- Effect of use of ambient listening technology on patient-reported communication and satisfaction ratings.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- Impact of a Physician Communication Development Program on Patient Experience Scores.Journal of patient experience · 2026Article
- Development and validation of CORe-MBC: a pragmatic measure of participatory care for adults with metastatic breast cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Health Ratings and Unmet Transportation Needs in Indiana's Aged and Disabled Home and Community-Based Services Waiver Program.Journal of aging & social policy · 2025Article
- A perspective on the use of patient-reported experience and patient-reported outcome measures in ambulatory healthcare.Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research · 2025Review
- Associations between CAHPS scores of patient care experiences and breast cancer survival among senior female survivors:a SEER-CAHPS analysis.Women & health · 2025Article
- Patient Experience in Older Adults with Diabetes: A Narrative Review on Interventions to Improve Patient Experience and Research Gaps.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Associations of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Clinician and Group Survey Scores with Interventions and Site, Provider, and Patient Factors: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.Journal of patient experience · 2024Article
- Does an "EZ" Survey Improve the Data Quality of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPSJournal of patient experience · 2024Article
- Cruising Speed: Our Journal's 10-Year Voyage.Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Patient experience is a key aspect of care quality. The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group (CG-CAHPS Methods: We reviewed English-language, peer-reviewed articles published since 2008 using CG-CAHPS survey data in the U.S. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and used the Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies. Results: We examined 126 articles and included 52. Twenty-seven articles focused on general primary care, and the others focused on ambulatory specialty care. Of the 52 studies, 37 were cross-sectional, and the majority conducted patient-level regression analysis, controlling for patient characteristics. The most-used CAHPS measures were overall provider rating and the provider communication composite. CG-CAHPS data were primarily utilized to evaluate interventions (24 studies) and examine cross-sectional associations (21 studies) of site-level (eg, organizational climate), provider-level (physician empathy), and patient-level (medication adherence) factors with patient experience. Four studies reported disparities in patient experience. Conclusions: The widespread use of CG-CAHPS data implies the survey's value in measuring and improving care quality. Unlike facility or plan surveys, the CG-CAHPS survey was designed to allow attribution to medical groups and clinicians, which, as evidence shows, is its main strength. Policymakers, researchers, clinicians, and health care leaders can leverage CG-CAHPS data in quality improvement efforts and interventions supporting patient-centered care.
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.