ArticleJPGN reports2025
Improving patient satisfaction in a multidisciplinary pediatric feeding clinic.
Article in JPGN reports, 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.
- Article
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
Objectives: Pediatric feeding disorders can result from psychosocial dysfunction, poor feeding skills, or medical or nutritional disorders. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction at the multidisciplinary feeding clinic (MFC) and improve patient satisfaction by reducing patient wait times, improving communication, maximizing clinic space, and expanding inclusivity of our patients and their families in the decision-making process. Methods: A survey was created with 14 questions and distributed to all patients who came to the MFC at the University of Iowa. The baseline surveys were administered from September 2021 to November 2021. The following interventions were implemented: reducing time to room a patient, maximizing clinic space, increasing clinical efficiency, and providing more education. Follow-up surveys were collected from December 2022 to March 2023. Results: A total of 84 subjects: 41 for the pre-intervention group and 43 for the post-intervention group. There were statistically significant differences noted in these categories: the team thoroughly explaining the treatment plan, answering all questions, and getting parents involved in the decision-making process. Families appreciated the team making the patient feel included throughout the visit. Providing spacious rooms and short wait times were also rated highly. Conclusion: Overall satisfaction for the MFC at the University of Iowa was rated as highly satisfactory. Areas of further improvement included shortening patient wait times and providing more education for families. This study highlights the continued importance of surveying patients to identify areas of improvement in multidisciplinary clinics.
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.