[en] Aims
To develop and validate a scale that is applicable in Belgium to investigate the aspects of female patients' satisfaction with urodynamic consultation, and to use it to measure the impact of a detailed explanatory leaflet on their satisfaction.
Materials and Methods
Question items were obtained from a group consensus (Delphi process). Each item was scored on a five-point Likert scale. The satisfaction scale was administered to two groups of patients attending the clinics for urodynamics. One hundred twenty-nine patients were included in the study and randomized in two groups. One group (n = 60) received a detailed explanatory leaflet about urodynamic consultation and the other did not (n = 69). Responses were subjected to a reliability and principal component analysis (PCA) to achieve data reduction and analysis, and to assess the reliability of the new scale. Relevant items were retained to compare both interventions using regression analysis.
Results
A 15-item scale was derived from the Delphi process. Exploratory factor analysis suggested a single factor solution with 11 meaningful items. No significant difference was noted in global scores of satisfaction between the two groups (P = 0.051).
Conclusions
A short-form patient satisfaction scale with acceptable validity and reliability was developed and used to measure patient satisfaction with urodynamic consultation in this population of Belgian women. This study did not provide support for the effectiveness of explanatory leaflets in improving satisfaction.
Disciplines :
Biochemistry, biophysics & molecular biology
Author, co-author :
Hougardy, Véronique ; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > Gynécologie-Obstétrique CHR
Vandeweerd, Jean-Michel ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Services généraux (Faculté de médecine vétérinaire) > Scientifiques attachés au Doyen (F MV)
Reda, A. A.
Foidart, Jean-Michel ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences cliniques > Gynécologie - Obstétrique - Labo de biologie des tumeurs et du développement
Language :
English
Title :
The impact of detailed explanatory leaflets on patient satisfaction with urodynamic consultation: A double-blind randomized controlled trial.
Publication date :
2009
Journal title :
Neurourology and Urodynamics
ISSN :
0733-2467
eISSN :
1520-6777
Publisher :
Wiley Liss, Inc., Hoboken, United States - New Jersey
Shaw C, Williams K, Assassa PR, et al. Patient satisfaction with urodynamics: A qualitative study. J Adv Nurs 2000;32:1356-63.
Ku JH, Kim SW, Kim HH, et al. Patient experience with a urodynamic study: A prospective study in 208 patients. J Urol 2004;171:2307-10.
Scarpero HM, Padmanabhan P, Xue X, et al. Patient perception of videourodynamic testing: A questionnaire based study. J Urol 2005;173: 555-9.
Aharony L, Strasser S. Patient satisfaction: What we know about and what we still need to explore. Med Care Rev 1993;50:49-79.
Capuzzo M, Gilli G, Paparella L, et al. Factors predictive of patient satisfaction with anesthesia. Anesth Analg 2007;105:435-42.
Paul F, Jones MC, Hendry C, et al. The quality of written information for parents regarding the management of a febrile convulsion: A randomized controlled trial. J Clin Nurs 2007;16:2308-22.
Shrestha BM. Patient information leaflets in surgical practice: A contemporary review J Nepal Med Assoc 2007;46:84-9.
Gorton E, Stanton S. Women's attitudes to urodynamics: A questionnaire survey. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999;106:851-6.
Oh SJ, Son H, Jeong JY, et al. Patients' experience with ambulatory urodynamics. A prospective study. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2006;40:391-6.
Zaghloul AA. Validation of a patient satisfaction scale for primary care settings. J Egypt Public Health Assoc 2001;76:411-29.
Meakin R, Weinman J. The 'Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale' (MISS-21) adapted for British general practice. Fam Pract 2002;19:257-63.
Takemura Y, Liv J, Atsumi R, et al. Development of a questionnaire to evaluate patient satisfaction with medical encounters. Tohoku J Exp Med 2006;210:373-81.
McDowell I, Newell C. Pain measurements. In: Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires, 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996. pp. 470-519.
Streiner DL, Norman GR. Healthmeasurement scales, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. pp. 15-161.
Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and services research. Br Med J 1995;311:376-80.
Cattell RB. A guide to statistical techniques. In: The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. Caltell (Ed). New York: Plenum Press; 1978. pp. 17-32.
Lickert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 1932;140:44-53.
Watkins MW. Monte Carlo parallel analysis (PA). 2008. http://www.personal.psu.edu/mww10/Watkins3.html. Accessed January 9, 2008.
Zhang Y, Rohrer J, Borders T, et al. Patient satisfaction, self-rated health status, and health confidence: An assessment of the utility of single-item questions. Am J Med Qual 2007;22:42-9.
Johnson LK, Edelman A, Jensen J. Patient satisfaction and the impact of written material about postpartum contraceptive decisions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:1202-4.
Kabakian-Khasholian T, Campbell OM. Impact of written information on women's use of postpartum services: A randomised controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007;86:793-8.
Mancini J, Nogue's C, Adenis C, et al. Impact of an information booklet on satisfaction and decision-making about BRCA genetic testing. Eur J Cancer 2006;42:871-81.
Lee A, Gin T. Educating patients about anaesthesia: Effect of various modes on patients' knowledge, anxiety and satisfaction. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2005;18:205-8.
Galaal KA, Deane K, Sangal S, et al. Interventions for reducing anxiety in women undergoing colposcopy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;18: CD006013.
O'Cathain A, Walters SJ, Nicholl JP, et al. Use of evidence based leaflets to promote informed choice in maternity care: Randomised controlled trial in everyday practice. Br Med J 2002; 16; 324:643.
Greenstein A, Bar-Yosef Y, Chen J, et al. Does information provided to men before a urodynamic study affect their expectation of pain? BJU Int 2005; 96:1307-9.
Ellerkmann RM, McBride AW, Dunn JS, et al. A comparison of anticipatory and postprocedure pain perception in patients who undergo urodynamic procedures. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;190:1034-8.
Rennie D. How to report randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. J Am Med Assoc 1996;276:649.
