Development and Validation of the One-Factor Questionnaire “Patient Satisfaction with Medical Care”

Cover Page

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Background. One of the most viral principles in the development of modern healthcare is patient-oriented approach — providing a medical care considering citizens’ expectations; ensuring individual approach in solving their personal problems. One of the most important markers for assessing patient-oriented health care provision is patient satisfaction with medical care. Aims — the aim of our study was to develop and validate a tool to assess this indicator in the Russian Federation. Methods. A total of 3012 people between the ages of 18 and 83 took part in the study. The ratio of males to females in the sample was approximately 1:1 (1501 females to 1511 males). Quantitative methods were used to conduct the analysis. Construct validity was assessed using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA and CFA, respectively) with appropriate assessment of goodness-of-fit. Reliability and internal consistency of the instrument measuring patient satisfaction with medical care was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. Results. The study involved 3012 people aged 18 to 83 years. The ratio of men to women in the sample was approximately 1:1 (1501 women and 1511 men). The proportion of urban residents who took part in the study was 67.2%, rural — 32.8%. Less than a month ago, 22.0% of respondents received medical care for the last time; from one to three months — 22.7%; four to six — 29.1%; from seven to twelve — 16.7%; more than a year ago — 9.5%. The services of private medical organizations were used by 12.3% of the study participants, state — 87.7%. The use of confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated the acceptability of a one-factor solution and confirmed the structural validity of the developed tool. The reliability and internal consistency of the patient satisfaction measurement tool was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. Cronbach’s alpha showed “excellent” internal domain consistency (> 0.9). Bartlett’s sphericity criterion was met (p-value < 0.001). Conclusion. The conducted statistical analysis allows us to assert the acceptability of the one-factor model and the construct validity of the proposed tool.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Lasha D. Сhargaziya

Russian Research Institute of Health

Email: chargaziyald@mednet.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8033-6377
SPIN-code: 5078-4694

Junior Research Assistant

Russian Federation, Moscow

Daria A. Shelegova

Russian Research Institute of Health

Email: shelegova@mednet.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1167-9760

Leading Specialist

Russian Federation, Moscow

Vladimir S. Vyskochkov

Russian Research Institute of Health

Email: vyskochkovvs@mednet.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5338-4760
SPIN-code: 3919-1738

Main Specialist

Russian Federation, Moscow

Denis S. Tyufilin

Russian Research Institute of Health

Email: tyufilinds@mednet.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9174-6419
SPIN-code: 7995-1025

Head of Department

Russian Federation, Moscow

Ivan P. Shibalkov

Russian Research Institute of Health

Author for correspondence.
Email: shibalkovip@mednet.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4255-6846
SPIN-code: 6341-3247

MD, PhD, Leading Researcher

Russian Federation, Moscow

Ivan A. Deev

Russian Research Institute of Health

Email: deevia@mednet.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4449-4810
SPIN-code: 2730-0004

MD, PhD, Deputy Director for Healthcare Organization

Russian Federation, Moscow

Olga S. Kobyakova

Russian Research Institute of Health

Email: kobyakovaos@mednet.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0098-1403
SPIN-code: 1373-0903

MD, PhD, Director

Russian Federation, Moscow

References

  1. Hudak PL, Hogg-Johnson S, Bombardier C, et al. Testing a new theory of patient satisfaction with treatment outcome. Med Care. 2004;42(8):726–739. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000132394.09032.81
  2. Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988;260(12):1743–1748. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.260.12.1743
  3. Pascoe GC. Patient satisfaction in primary health care: a literature review and analysis. Eval Program Plann. 1983;6(3–4):185–210. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(83)90002-2
  4. Wolosin RJ. The voice of the patient: A national, representative study of satisfaction with family physicians. Qual Manag Health Care. 2005;14(3):155–164.
  5. Risser NL. Development of an instrument to measure patient satisfaction with nurses and nursing care in primary care settings. Nurs Res. 1975;24(1):45–52.
  6. Mpinga EK, Chastonay P. Patient Satisfaction Studies and the Monitoring of the Right to Health: Some Thoughts Based on a Review of the Literature. Global Journal of Health Science. 2011;3(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.v3n1p64
  7. Myburgh NG, Solanki GC, Smith MJ, et al. Patient satisfaction with health care providers in South Africa: The influences of race and socioeconomic status. Int J Qual Health Care. 2005;17(6):473–477. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzi062
  8. Linder-Pelz SU. Toward a theory of patient satisfaction. Soc Sci Med. 1982;16(5):577–582. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(82)90311-2
  9. Кобякова О.С., Деев И.А., Тюфилин Д.С., и др. Удовлетворенность медицинской помощью: как измерить и сравнить? // Социальные аспекты здоровья населения. — 2016. — Т. 49. — № 3. [Kobyakova OS, Deev IA, Tyufilin DS, et al. Satisfaction with Health Care: How to Measure and Compare? Social Aspects of Population Health. 2016;49(3).] doi: https://doi.org/10.21045/2071-5021-2016-49-3-5. Available from: http://vestnik.mednet.ru/content/view/753/30/lang,ru/ (accessed: 27.06.2022).
  10. Ware JE. Development and Validation of Scales to Measure Patient Satisfaction with Health Care Services. Volume II, Perceived Health and Patient Role Propensity. Southern Illinois University, School of Medicine; National Technical Information Service, 1976.
  11. Ware JE, Jr, Snyder MK, Wright WR. Development and validation of scales to measure patient satisfaction with health care services: Volume I of a Final Report Part A: Review of literature, overview of methods, and results regarding construction of scales. NTIS No. PB 288-329. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service; 1976.
  12. Al-Abri R, Al-Balushi, A. Patient satisfaction survey as a tool towards quality improvement. Oman Med J. 2014;29(1):3–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.5001/omj.2014.02
  13. Keller S, O’Malley AJ, Hays RD, et al. Methods used to streamline the CAHPS Hospital Survey. Health Serv Res. 2005;40(6Pt2):2057–2077. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00478.x
  14. Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Bruster S. The Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire: development and validation using data from in-patient surveys in five countries. Int J Qual Health Care. 2002;14(5):353–358. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/14.5.353
  15. Comrey AL, Lee HB. A first course in factor analysis. 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.; 1992.
  16. Preacher KJ, MacCallum RC. Repairing Tom Swift’s Electric Factor Analysis Machine. Understanding Statistics. 2003;2(1):13–43. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328031US0201_02
  17. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, et al. Multivariate data analysis. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1998.
  18. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999;6(1):1–55. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  19. Awang Z. A Handbook on SEM Structural Equation Modelling: SEM Using AMOS Graphic. 5th ed. Kota Baru: Universiti Teknologi Mara Kelantan; 2012.
  20. Taber KS. The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Res Sci Educ. 2018;48(6):1273–1296. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
2. Fig. 1. CFA of the one-factor structure of the questionnaire "Satisfaction of the population with medical care"

Download (276KB)
3. Attachment
Download (5MB)

Copyright (c) 2023 "Paediatrician" Publishers LLC



This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies