Author:
Banda Susan,Nkungula Nthanda,Chiumia Isabel Kazanga,Rylance Jamie,Limbani Felix
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Perspectives of patients as clients on healthcare offer unique insights into the process and outcomes of care and can facilitate improvements in the quality of services. Differences in the tools used to measure these perspectives often reflect differences in the conceptualization of quality of care and personal experiences. This systematic review assesses the validity and reliability of instruments measuring client experiences and satisfaction with healthcare in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
Methods
We performed a systematic search of studies published in PubMed, SCOPUS, and CINAHL. This review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies describing the development and psychometric properties of client experience and satisfaction with general health care were included in the review. Critical appraisal of study design was undertaken using the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS). The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist and Terwee’s criteria were used to appraise the psychometric properties of the included studies. A narrative synthesis approach was used in the interpretation of the findings.
Results
Of the 7470 records identified, 12 studies with 14 corresponding instruments met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final review. No study assessed all the psychometric properties highlighted by the COSMIN criteria. In most instruments, we found evidence that initial development work incorporated client participation. The most evaluated measurement properties were content validity, internal consistency, and structural validity. Measurement error and responsiveness were not reported in any study.
Conclusion
Reliability and validity should be considered important elements when choosing or developing an instrument for professionals seeking an effective instrument for use within the population. Our review identified limitations in the psychometric properties of patient experience and satisfaction instruments, and none met all methodological quality standards. Future studies should focus on further developing and testing available measures for their effectiveness in clinical practice. Furthermore, the development of new instruments should incorporate clients' views and be rigorously tested or validated in studies with high methodological quality.
Trial registration
CRD42020150438.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference61 articles.
1. World Health Organization, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, The World Bank. Delivering quality health services: a global imperative for universal health coverage. Geneva: WHO; 2018. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/272465.
2. Institute of Medicine. Crossing quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st centuary. Washington (DC): National Academy Press; 2001.
3. Garratt A, Solheim E, Danielsen K. National and cross-national surveys of patient experiences : a structured review. Report No. 7-2008. Oslo: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services; 2008. https://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/39493930.pdf.
4. Doyle C, Lennox L, Bell D. A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open. 2013;3:1–18.
5. Nasir K, Okunrintemi V. Association of patient-reported experiences with health resource utilization and cost among US adult population, medical expenditure panel survey (MEPS), 2010 – 13. Int J Qual Heal Care. 2019;31:547–55.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献