ArticlePatient preference and adherence2025
Validating Patient Perspectives: A Study on the Reliability of Satisfaction Survey Tools.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2025. 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.
- Patient Satisfaction Measurement: A Comparison of Likert and Item-Specific Response Options Scales.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Patient perceptions of care quality can guide targeted improvements. Valid and reliable measures are essential for meaningful patient satisfaction assessment, but no validated questionnaires were found among those used in most Italian hospitals. This study aimed to assess the internal reliability and construct validity of two patient satisfaction questionnaires (one for outpatient care and one for inpatient care) developed at Ordine Mauriziano Hospital in Torino, Italy. Patients and methods: The questionnaires underwent face and content validation based on literature, brainstorming, and expert input. After Ethics Committee approval, patients admitted to or accessing the Ordine Mauriziano Hospital for outpatient visits completed the inpatient and outpatient care questionnaires, respectively. Responses were analyzed for internal reliability (Cronbach's ɑ) and construct validity using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results: Between February and May 2024, 371 outpatient and 374 inpatient questionnaires were fully completed (78%). Both questionnaires' specific subscales showed high internal reliability (Cronbach's ɑ ≥0.80) and a significant positive correlation with overall satisfaction, confirming construct validity. CFA fit indices met recommended thresholds: CFI>0.9, RMSEA, and SRMR<0.08. Conclusion: The results suggest that both questionnaires are valid and reliable for assessing patient satisfaction. They offer valuable insights for healthcare personnel and managers to improve care by focusing efforts and investments on areas needing enhancement and strengthening successful dimensions. Moreover, the widespread use of these tools at the regional level will provide decision-makers with more robust and comparable data over time and across care facilities.
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.