ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Validation of a Questionnaire to Assess Patient Satisfaction with an Automated Drug Dispensing System.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of the 9-item Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ-9) for use in community pharmacy settings.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2026Article
- Comparing Patient Satisfaction with Automated Drug Dispensing System and Traditional Drug Dispensing System: A Cross-Sectional Study.Patient preference and adherence · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesAutomated drug dispensing systems (ADDs) have been introduced to improve the efficiency of dispensing and patient safety. The available questionnaires measure patient satisfaction with particular aspects of ADDs. Also, the level of patient satisfaction with ADDs is not widely established. This study aimed to develop and validate a novel questionnaire to assess patient satisfaction with ADDs.
methodsContent and construct validity procedures were used to validate the 20-item questionnaire with four domains, including pharmacy administration, dispensing practice, patient education, and the dispensing system. Two hundred consenting participants took part in this study, from those who visited the outpatient pharmacy in a government hospital.
resultsThe internal consistency of all four scale items shows acceptable reliability (>0.7). In the exploratory factor analysis, three items were removed due to poor factor loading and cross-loading. In the confirmatory factor analysis, the model has acceptable fit indices, including the comparative fit index (0.937), Tucker-Lewis's index (0.924), standardized root mean square residual (0.051), root mean square error of approximation (0.057), and χ
conclusionThis study offered a reliable and valid 17-item questionnaire incorporating a multi-dimensional four-factor model to evaluate patient satisfaction with ADDs. The validated questionnaire can be utilized to explore patients' perspectives on ADDs.
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.