How to assess patient satisfaction regarding physician interaction: A systematic review. Issue 2 (18th January 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Godillot, Clothilde; Jendoubi, Fatma; Konstantinou, Maria Polina; Poncet, Mathilde; Bergeron, Anais; Gallini, Adeline; Paul, Carle
• Is Part Of: Dermatologic therapy. Volume 34:Issue 2(2021)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2021-01-18
• Subjects: chronic diseases -- patient‐physician relations -- patient satisfaction -- questionnaire -- validated tools; Skin -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Dermatology -- Periodicals; 616.5
• DOI: 10.1111/dth.14702
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1396-0296

Abstract

Abstract: Patient satisfaction is an important health care quality indicator. This is particularly relevant in chronic diseases, such as, many dermatological diseases. The purpose of the current systematic review was to assess the validated tools measuring patient satisfaction with physician interaction. We performed a systematic review search in Pubmed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE. The psychometric properties of the instruments and the domains explored were assessed. Overall, 2229 articles were extracted from the literature search. Of these, 146 articles were eligible for inclusion, 55 were included, and 22 scores were selected. A total of 13 instruments reported cross‐cultural validation and the EUROPEP score highlighted the most diverse cross‐cultural validation involving 11 different countries. All scores were assessed for content validity, construct validity, factor analysis, reliability, and responsiveness to change. The extent of the validation varied between scores with a few assessing practicability. The following domains were explored: listening skills, empathy, caring/compassion, confidentiality, honesty, behavior, competency/technical skills, satisfaction with the information provided, time given, availability, the environment, trust in the physician, ability to comply with the recommendations, and readiness to recommend the physician to other patients. We identified a total of 22 validated instruments. The major gaps in the validation process appear to be the practicability of the scores and the cross‐cultural validation. Major domains evaluated by the scores are communication skills that can be improved by specific training. There is a need to improve evaluation of the quality of the patient‐physician relationship in dermatology using validated instruments.