RESEARCH ARTICLE


Association between Patient Satisfaction and the Willingness to Return for Rehabilitation- A Pilot Study



Nguyen Thi Thu Thao1, Trinh Thanh Xuan1, Nguyen Bao Tran2, Bui Thi Huong1, Nguyen Tuan Anh3, Nguyen Quang Duc1, Nguyen Thi Ngoc Thuy4, Nguyen Thi Thanh Tam5, Nguyen Thi Hong Ngan5, Nguyen Van Khai1, Nguyen Thi Minh Ngoc1, *
1 Faculty of Public Health, Hai Phong University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Haiphong, Vietnam
2 Department of Anatomy, Hai Phong University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Haiphong, Vietnam
3 Department of Neurology, Hai Phong University of Medicine and Pharmacy
4 Department of Rehabilitation, Hai Phong University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Haiphong, Vietnam
5 Stu, Hai Phong University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Haiphong, Vietnam


Article Metrics

CrossRef Citations:
0
Total Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 924
Abstract HTML Views: 381
PDF Downloads: 245
Total Views/Downloads: 1550
Unique Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 545
Abstract HTML Views: 224
PDF Downloads: 205
Total Views/Downloads: 974



Creative Commons License
© 2021 Thao et al.

open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

* Address correspondence to this author at the Faculty of Public Health, Haiphong University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 72A Nguyen Binh Khiem Street, Ngo Quyen District, Hai Phong City, Vietnam; Tel: +84 934433789; E-mail: ntmngoc@hpmu.edu.vn


Abstract

Background:

Patient satisfaction has played an important role in the development of health systems. However, the information on patient satisfaction and the returning of the patients for rehabilitation is limited. This study aims to explore the role of different domains in patient satisfaction with the willingness to return for further rehabilitation.

Methods:

The cross-sectional study was conducted among all 163 patients who were treated at different departments but needed a combination of treatment with rehabilitation at Viettiep hospital, Haiphong city. The Patient Satisfaction Index (PSI) Questionnaire was applied to record the average score of satisfaction. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the association between each domain of the PSI and the return for rehabilitation treatment.

Results:

Among the PSI scale, the strongest correlation was observed between the attitude of medical staff and the equipment and infrastructure of the hospital (r=0.305). The linear regression model indicated that patient satisfaction was associated significantly with the willingness to return for further rehabilitation (OR= 58.442). There were significant associations between the accessibility, equipment and infrastructure, quality of care and treatment, and cost of treatment with the returning for treatment of the patients.

Conclusion:

The patient satisfaction regarding individual domains should be considered in more detail in order to enhance the rehabilitation treatment of patients after discharging them from the hospital.

Keywords: Patient satisfaction, Willingness to return, Accessibility, Quality of care, Infrastructure, Treatment cost, Rehabilitation.



1. INTRODUCTION

Despite being used commonly, the concept of patient satisfaction seems not to have a rigorous theoretical definition [1]. Patient satisfaction is known as a combination of a cognitive evaluation and an emotional reaction to healthcare providers [2], which partly expresses the patient’s perception of treatment effectiveness [3]. The assessment of patient satisfaction is also important information for evaluating and developing service quality in the healthcare system. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), patient’s satisfaction evaluations can also address the reliability, responsiveness, and security of services as well as the courtesy of providers. The WHO also states that specific factors should be considered as the elements of patient’s satisfaction, including the accessibility of services, the result and cost of treatment, staff communication, information resources, and time spent with a counselor [4]. Moreover, the infrastructure of the hospital was found to be correlating with patient satisfaction [5, 6]. Previous studies indicated that a decrease in the satisfaction of patients may lead them to change their health services provider [7]. Besides that, patient’s satisfaction has been proven to affect healthcare utilization, the patient’s recommendation of providers to others [8], and the willingness to return to the hospital for future requirements [9].

There has been an increase in studies on the assessment of patient satisfaction. The Ministry of Health of Vietnam has created a Patient Satisfaction Index (PSI) Questionnaire, which is provided to medical facilities for self-assessment and quality improvement [10]. So far, these studies have been conducted mainly among patients who had been treated within the same department or hospital to demonstrate the interaction between the patients and health workers and health services at the time of treatment [11-13]. There are no studies that describe the relationship between the patient’s satisfaction and the willingness to return for further consulting and treatment if needed. Patients with different diseases who have a combination of treatment with rehabilitation are special subjects who need the same care and support as patients who are only officially treated at a rehabilitation department. However, no studies have been conducted to evaluate the effect of patient’s satisfaction on the willingness to go back to the rehabilitation department for future services. Our study was conducted among this special population to evaluate the association between satisfaction and the willingness to return for the future rehabilitation.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Study Population

A cross-sectional study was conducted at the Rehabilitation Department of Viettiep Hospital, the largest hospital in Haiphong city, from 1st December 2019 to 30th April 2020. All of the inpatients who received rehabilitation combined treatment while being officially admitted to departments other than rehabilitation, including the Internals and Surgery, were invited to participate in the study. The eligibility criteria included 1) being an inpatient at the time of collecting data; 2) using services at the Rehabilitation Department for at least 1 week; 3) the ability to respond to the questions of the interviewer, and 4) need for rehabilitation after discharge from the hospital (according to the doctor’s advice).

2.2. Procedure

We approached a total of 163 patients who met the selection criteria, and none of them refused to participate in the study (response rate 100%). To limit any chance which can reduce the reliability of patients’ answers due to the time of interview [14], we made an appointment for each participant to have an interview at their last time of using service at The Rehabilitation Department. On the days of appointments, after patients finished their treatment at Rehabilitation Department, we invited them to the private room for interviews. These processes were done by persons who did not involve in any activity related to the Rehabilitation Department as well as medical providers to avoid the psychosocial determinants’ bias [15]. Totally, data collecting from 163 patients were analyzed.

2.3. Patient’s Satisfaction Assessment

The Patient Satisfaction Index Scale (PSI scale), which was proposed and approved by the Ministry of Health of Vietnam, was utilized in this study [16]. It was modified to apply to patients for determining their satisfaction with healthcare services for their rehabilitation experience in the hospital. The PSI scale contains a total of eleven questions under the following six domains of satisfaction: Accessibility; Information transparency; Equipment and infrastructure, Attitude of medical staff; Quality of care and treatment; and Cost of treatment. This scale prompted patients to rate their experience using the 5-point Likert scale (completely dissatisfied =1, dissatisfied =2, neutral =3, satisfied =4, and completely satisfied =5). The score will be summed for each domain and whole the scale, in which the higher score indicates the higher satisfaction of the patients. Cronbach’s α for the total questionnaire and each domain of the scale was from 0.75 to 0.8.

2.4. Outcome

The main outcome was the patients’ intention of returning to receive further rehabilitation services after discharge from the hospital. This was evaluated with the question: Are you willing to return to the rehabilitation department to continue your rehabilitation treatment after you are discharged from the hospital? Patients who answered “Yes” were classified as the willingness to return patients and patients who gave the answer “No” or “Not sure” were classified as the unwillingness to return patients.

2.5. Other Variables

Other information collected on the participants comprised age, gender, living location, occupation, having insurance, type of rehabilitation therapy, and the department where they received treatment, including Orthopedics, Neurology, Surgery, Geriatrics, and others.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Data were examined for the normal distribution before choosing the appropriate test. Mann-Whitney U test was applied to compare the different average scores of PSI scale and six domains between the willingness to the return-patient group and the unwillingness to the return-patient group. Confounding variables were age, sex, occupation, living location, faculty treatment, having health insurance, and type of rehabilitation therapy. The Odds Ratios (ORs) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) of each domain of the PSI scale were calculated using multivariate linear regression models with adjustments for potential confounding factors in order to assess the association between PSI domains and the willingness to return for further rehabilitation treatment. Analyses were performed using R software. The significance of differences was set at p < 0.05 for all analyses.

3. RESULTS

The percentage of female participants was 58.3%. The average age of the participants was 65.04 ± 15.04. Retired patients accounted for the highest percentage of occupation with 41.7% (Table 1). Patients lived in both urban and suburban locations. Participants were treated in several different departments; 34.4% were from the orthopedics department. Physical therapy was used for all the patients. In addition, 96.3% of participants used occupational therapy for treatment. 88.3% of patients were willing to return for further rehabilitation after discharge from the hospital.

Table 2 showed the total PSI score was positively correlated to all the domains of the scale, of which the correlation between total PSI and the attitude of medical staff was the highest (r=0.568), followed by equipment and infrastructure (r=0.543). Among the domains, the strongest correlation was observed between the attitude of medical staff and the equipment and infrastructure of the hospital (r=0.305), following by the correlation between the accessibility and the quality of care and treatment (r=0.277).

Table 1. Participants’ characteristics.
Characteristics - N (163) %
Age 16-39 8 4.9
40-59 43 26.4
60-79 87 53.4
≥ 80 25 15.3
Mean: 65.04 ± 15.04 - -
Gender Male 68 41.7
Female 95 58.3
Living location Urban 85 52.1
Suburban 78 47.9
Occupation Student 3 1.8
Officer 24 14.7
Worker 27 16.6
Farmers and freelance worker 25 15.3
Housewife 16 9.8
Retired 68 41.7
Department treatment Geriatrics 21 12.9
Orthopedics 56 34.4
Neurology 30 18.4
Surgery 18 11.0
Other 38 23.3
Having health insurance Yes 160 98.2
Rehabilitation therapy Physical therapy 163 100
Occupational therapy 157 96.3
Others 19 11.7
Willingness to return for rehabilitation No 19 11.7
Yes 144 88.3
Table 2. Correlation between the PSI domains’ score.
Accessibility Information transparency Equipment and infrastructure Attitude of medical staff Quality of care and treatment Cost of treatment
Accessibility 1.000 - - - - -
Information transparency -0.190* 1.000 - - - -
Equipment and infrastructure 0.013 -0.092 1.000 - - -
Attitude of medical staff -0.002 -0.119 0.305** 1.000 - -
Quality of care and treatment 0.277** -0.112 0.191* 0.160* 1.000 -
Cost of treatment 0.079 0.019 0.112 0.241** 0.030 1.000
Total PSI 0.398** 0.210** 0.543** 0.568** 0.517** 0.417**
Spearman’s correlation
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Table 3. The difference between PSI domains’ scores between the willingness to return-patient group and unwillingness to return-patient group.
Unwillingness to Return-Patient Group (n= 19)
Mean ± SD
Willingness to Return-patient Group (n = 144)
Mean ± SD
p
Accessibility 4.05 ± 0.64 4.42 ± 0.48 0.030
Information transparency 4.16 ± 0.80 4.26 ± 0.56 0.607
Equipment and infrastructure 3.82 ± 0.67 4.28 ± 0.47 0.009
Attitude of medical staff 4.08 ± 0.63 4.43 ± 0.52 0.007
Quality of care and treatment 3.61 ± 0.72 4.11 ± 0.47 <0.001
Cost of treatment 3.42 ± 0.77 3.79 ± 0.72 0.038
Total PSI 3.89 ± 0.517 4.25 ± 0.21 0.080
Table 4. Odds ratios (95% CI) for the willingness to return for further rehabilitation according to the domains of patient satisfaction index.
Domains aOR (95% CI)* p
Accessibility 6.466 (1.959- 21.343) 0.002
Information transparency 1.370 (0.577- 3.252) 0.475
Equipment and infrastructure 4.996 (1.592- 15.679) 0.006
Attitude of medical staff 2.307 (0.887- 5.999) 0.086
Quality of care and treatment 5.545 (1.872- 16.419) 0.036
Cost of treatment 2.461 (1.062- 5.703) 0.036
Total PSI 58.442 (4.149- 823.270) 0.003
*Adjusted for age, gender, occupation, living location, department treatment, having health insurance, rehabilitation therapy

The study results in Table 3 showed that the group of patients who were not willing to return for further rehabilitation treatment had a lower mean score of satisfaction (3.89 ± 0.517) than the group of return patients (4.25 ± 0.21). However, the difference was not statistically significant. The significantly lower scores in 5 out of 6 domains were observed in the non-return-patients group, except for the domain of information transparency.

Results of logistic regresstion models demonstrated that patient satisfaction was associated significantly with the need for returning for further rehabilitation of patients with OR (95%CI) of 58.442 (4.149-823.270). Among the domains, the odds ratio of returning for rehabilitation related to the accessibility, equipment and infrastructure, quality of care and treatment, and cost of treatment domains were 6.466 (1.959- 21.343), 4.996 (1.592- 15.679), 5.545 (1.872- 16.419) and 2.461 (1.062- 5.703), respectively. The information on transparency and the attitude of medical staff was not significantly associated with the return of patients (Table 4).

4. DISCUSSION

Our research suggests a significant association between the willingness to return for future rehabilitation and patient’s satisfaction, especially with four domains, including accessibility, infrastructure, the result of treatment, and cost of treatment. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study in Vietnam to demonstrate the influence of patient’s satisfaction and the willingness to return for further rehabilitation treatment.

Patient’s satisfaction is a very important index to evaluate services and improve the quality of the health system, including facilities and personnel. Consistent with the previous finding among patients undergoing total hip replacement [9], this study revealed a strong positive association between PSI score and the willingness to return for further treatment of patients. Although measuring patient’s satisfaction, these results were not representative of the same construct of satisfaction.

This study indicated that people who were satisfied with accessibility were more likely to return to rehabilitation. A study of inpatient’s satisfaction with medical services quality at Bach Mai Hospital, a famous Vietnamese hospital, showed that more than 90% of patients were satisfied with the ability to access information at this hospital [17]. Moreover, it was found that overall satisfaction scores as well as domains related to care accessibility and hospital facilities [11]. In addition, the difficulty of accessibility to different facilities could attenuate the satisfaction of patients [18]. However, these studies did not show whether accessibility is related to a patient's desire to return for treatment. The results of this study suggested that the easier it was to access the facilities, the more likely it that patients are willing to return for rehabilitation.

On the other hand, the results also showed that the satisfaction with equipment and infrastructure was positively associated with the willingness of the patients to return. The previous study suggested that the development of the hospital, such as beautiful hospital decoration, modern examination facilities, and the design of reasonable examination areas would lead to higher patient satisfaction [19]. In addition, the satisfaction with the preprocedural waiting area in the hospital was associated with the willingness to return for repeat medical service [20]. It has been proposed that because patients cannot reliably differentiate positive experiences with the physical environment from positive experiences with care, an improved patient-centered hospital environment with features such as reducing the noise, increasing natural light, visitor-friendly facilities, well-decorated rooms, and hotel-like amenities would lead to higher satisfaction of patients [19]. The need for renovating and upgrading the physical environment of the hospitals thus should not be overlooked.

This study clearly showed that the quality of care and treatment and the cost of treatment were significantly associated with the willingness to return for rehabilitation. This finding was in line with the previous results, which suggested the association between patients’ willingness to return for future treatment and treatment outcome [21, 22]. Furthermore, patients who were considered to be suffering no complications after being discharged are more likely to return to the hospital for further treatment [9]. The results of treatment may reflect partly the professional qualifications of the doctors and the quality of care of the nurses in the hospital, so highly qualified manpower is one of the decisive factors in the ranking of the hospital as well as patient satisfaction. Rehabilitation therapy requires long-term and continuous treatment as well as much time of contact between patients and medical staff; therefore, patient supervision is essential. This is related to the concern and encouragement of the medical staff at the hospital. Research on both outpatients and inpatients suggested that the “health workers' attitudes” and “care and treatment” contributed to the highest satisfaction scores [22]. Another previous study also demonstrated that a patient's positive experience with health workers during their stay in the hospital was strongly correlated with the patient's assessment of the quality of medical care [23-25]. Beyond medical expertise, an adequate time that the physician spent for maintaining continuity of care and satisfaction for each patient was noted [7]. In addition, the literature on this topic emphasized the importance of professionalism and dedication to the profession of doctors and nurses on the perception of patients on care quality [17, 18]. This suggested that, in order to enhance the patient's satisfaction level, it is necessary to improve the factors related to the expertise and communication skills of medical staff [26]. Treatment cost is one of the factors that many people consider when choosing a hospital for treatment. Our finding was different from the suggestion of no relationship between patient satisfaction and cost and payment of rehabilitative services in China [27, 28]. Another retrospective study using data collected from a large hospital also did not result in a significant correlation between patient satisfaction and cost [29]. Nonetheless, a study conducted among Japanese showed that more participants indicated satisfaction with treatment in the group paying less [29]. The evidence of an influence of paying on the willingness to return for treatment, especially among patients with poor health and lower socioeconomic status, was demonstrated [30]. A rare study predicting factors affecting willingness to return for the treatment described the correlation between the explanation of billing procedure and the willingness to recommend/return to the hospital [31]. Although the majority of patients in our study already had health insurance, most of them are elderly and retired. This may explain the role of the cost of treatment among possible factors influencing the ability to return for treatment.

Meanwhile, among domains, transparency of information did not show a significant statistical difference in the willingness to return for rehabilitation. One of the reasons to explain this finding was the ease of access to the information via the internet, radio, and television, instead of previous times when the patient could only get information from hospital staff. The behavioral attitude of medical staff was also not a factor affecting the patient's decision to return in our study. Previous studies have also shown that the elderly tend to be satisfied more easily than younger people [11, 20]. Research in Carolina about healthcare satisfaction in older and younger patients with cancer revealed that older patients with cancer had higher levels of satisfaction with care, in part due to a lesser financial burden of care, and satisfaction with care did not change over time post-treatment in multivariable analysis [32]. The population in our study was mainly elderly, which could provide a similar explanation for the findings.

5. LIMITATIONS

This initial cross-sectional study does not permit the assessment of causality owing to the uncertain temporality of the association. Because this study focused on a targeted patient group in one hospital with small sample size, it may affect the results of statistical analyses and the generalizability of the results. Moreover, the PSI scales have been modified then it limited evidence of reliability and validity. In addition, this study did not follow up with patients to determine their return. Therefore, this study cannot eliminate the bias in the answers of the patients. Further follow-up studies with larger numbers of participants should be considered to provide clearer findings.

CONCLUSION

The willingness to return for further rehabilitation treatment was associated with patient satisfaction, especially with the accessibility, equipment and infrastructure, quality of care and treatment, and cost of treatment. The patient satisfaction regarding individual domains should be considered in more detail in order to enhance the rehabilitation treatment of patients after discharging them from the hospital.

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS

Conceptualization, Nguyen.T.T.T, Nguyen.B.T, Nguyen.T.A, Nguyen.T.M.N; Data curation, Trinh.T.X. Nguyen.T.A. Nguyen.Q.D; Formal analysis, Nguyen.T.T.T; Investigation, Bui.T.H, Nguyen.T.A., Nguyen Q.D, Nguyen.T.N.T, Nguyen.T.T.T, Nguyen.T.H.N, Nguyen.V.K; Methodology, Nguyen.T.T.T, Nguyen.B.T, Nguyen.V.K, Supervision, Nguyen.T.M.N; Writing – original draft, Nguyen.T.T.T, Trinh.T.X; Writing – review & editing, Nguyen.T.M.N. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

PSI = Patient Satisfaction Index
SD = Standard Deviation
OR = Odd Ratio
CI = Confidence Interval

ETHICS APPROVAL AND CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE

The procedure for this study was approved by the ethics committee of Haiphong University of Medicine and Pharmacy (Code: 2019.01.Stu/HPMU.IRB).

HUMAN AND ANIMAL RIGHTS

No animals were used in this research. All human research procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the committee responsible for human experimentation (institutional and national), and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2013.

CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION

All participants were given an explanation of the aims and objectives of the study before oral consent was conducted.

STANDARDS OF REPORTING

STROBE guidelines and methodology were followed.

FUNDING

None.

AVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIALS

The data supporting the findings of the article is available in the Zenodo Repository at [https://zenodo.org/record/5535462#.YVQjHbgzaM8], reference number [ 10.5281/zenodo.5535462].

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest financial or otherwise.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank all the patients and staff at the Rehabilitation Department at Viettiep Hospital for their cooperation. Special thanks to Prof. Elizabeth V Wattenberg for her patient time spent correcting and recommending the usage of the English language of the manuscript.

REFERENCES

[1] Gill L, White L. A critical review of patient satisfaction.Leadership in Health Services 2009; 22(1): 8-19.
[2] Urden LD. Patient satisfaction measurement: Current issues and implications. Outcomes Manag 2002; 6(3): 125-31. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12134376/
[3] Shirley E D, Sanders J O. Patient satisfaction: Implications and predictors of success.J Bone Jt Surgery-American 2013; 95(10): 1-4.
[4] World Health Organization. Workbook 6 Client satisfaction evaluations 2000.
[5] Grogan S, Conner M, Norman P, Willits D, Porter I. Validation of a questionnaire measuring patient satisfaction with general practitioner services. Qual Health Care 2000; 9(4): 210-5.
[6] Siddiqui ZK, Zuccarelli R, Durkin N, Wu AW, Brotman DJ. Changes in patient satisfaction related to hospital renovation: experience with a new clinical building. J Hosp Med 2015; 10(3): 165-71.
[7] Marquis MS, Davies AR, Ware JE Jr. Patient satisfaction and change in medical care provider: a longitudinal study. Med Care 1983; 21(8): 821-9.
[8] Schoenfelder T, Klewer J, Kugler J. Determinants of patient satisfaction: a study among 39 hospitals in an in-patient setting in Germany. Int J Qual Health Care 2011; 23(5): 503-9.
[9] Schaal T, Schoenfelder T, Klewer J, Kugler J. Determinants of patient satisfaction and their willingness to return after primary total hip replacement: a cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2016; 17(1): 330.
[10] Agency of health examination and treatment - Vietnamese ministry of health, patient satisfaction index 2018.
[11] Hwang J, Vu GT, Tran BX, et al. Measuring satisfaction with health care services for Vietnamese patients with cardiovascular diseases. PLoS One 2020; 15(6)e0235333
[12] Nguyen TC, Nguyen TTM. Service quality and its impact on patient satisfaction: An investigation in vietnamese public hospitals. J Emerg Econ Islam Res 2014; 2(1): 66.
[13] Nguyen T, Nguyen H, Dang A. Determinants of patient satisfaction: Lessons from large-scale inpatient interviews in Vietnam. PLoS One 2020; 15(9): e0239306.
[14] Jackson JL, Chamberlin J, Kroenke K. Predictors of patient satisfaction. Soc Sci Med 2001; 52(4): 609-20.
[15] Sitzia J, Wood N. Patient satisfaction: A review of issues and concepts. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45(12): 1829-43.
[16] Ministry of Health of Vietnam_ Medical Services Administration. Patients satisfaction index- Policy report 2018. Available from: https://hailongnguoibenh.vn/system/files/report_cshlnb.pdf
[17] Phuoc NN. Assessment of satisfaction of inpatients and family members Patients about the quality of medical services at the Cardiovascular Institute - Hospital Bach Mai in 2014 Preventive medicine. 2014; 2(1): 150-5.
[18] Abera RG, Abota BA, Legese MH, Negesso AE. Patient satisfaction with clinical laboratory services at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Patient Prefer Adherence 2017; 11: 1181-8.
[19] Siddiqui ZK, Zuccarelli R, Durkin N, Wu AW, Brotman DJ. Changes in patient satisfaction related to hospital renovation: experience with a new clinical building. J Hosp Med 2015; 10(3): 165-71.
[20] Loftus R, Nugent Z, Graff LA, Schumacher F, Bernstein CN, Singh H. Patient satisfaction with the endoscopy experience and willingness to return in a central Canadian health region. Can J Gastroenterol 2013; 27(5): 259-66.
[21] Schoenfelder T, Schaal T, Klewer J, Kugler J. Patient satisfaction and willingness to return to the provider among women undergoing gynecological surgery. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2014; 290(4): 683-90.
[22] Gonzalez N, Quintana JM, Bilbao A, Escobar A, Aizpuru F, Thompson A. Development and validation of an in-patient satisfaction questionnaire. J Int Soc Qual Heal Care 2005; 17(6): 465-72.
[23] Goel S, Sharma D, Singh A. Development and validation of a patient satisfaction questionnaire for outpatients attending health centres in North Indian cities. J Health Serv Res Policy 2014; 19(2): 85-93.
[24] Shan L, Li Y, Ding D, et al. Patient satisfaction with hospital inpatient care: Effects of trust, medical insurance and perceived quality of care. PLoS One 2016; 11(10)e0164366
[25] Aiken LH, Sloane DM, Ball J, Bruyneel L, Rafferty AM, Griffiths P. Patient satisfaction with hospital care and nurses in England: an observational study. BMJ Open 2018; 8(1)e019189
[26] Anderson R, Barbara A, Feldman S. What patients want: A content analysis of key qualities that influence patient satisfaction. J Med Pract Manage 2007; 22(5): 255-61.
[27] Zhao M, Haley DR, Nolin JM, Dunning K, Wang J, Sun Q. Utilization, cost, payment, and patient satisfaction of rehabilitative services in Shandong, China. Health Policy 2009; 93(1): 21-6.
[28] Goldstein E, Ho CX, Hanna R, et al. Cost of care for subjective tinnitus in relation to patient satisfaction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015; 152(3): 518-23.
[29] Masaki S, Tatsukawa R, Uryu M, et al. Treatment satisfaction, willingness to pay and quality of life in Japanese patients with psoriasis. J Dermatol 2017; 44(2): 143-6.
[30] Antoun JM, Hamadeh GN, Adib SM. What matters in the patients’ decision to revisit the same primary care physician? J Med Liban 2014; 62(4): 198-202.
[31] Burroughs TE, Davies AR, Cira JC, Dunagan WC. Understanding patient willingness to recommend and return: a strategy for prioritizing improvement opportunities. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 1999; 25(6): 271-87.
[32] Mariano C, Hanson LC, Deal AM, et al. Healthcare satisfaction in older and younger patients with cancer. J Geriatr Oncol 2016; 7(1): 32-8.