Pitfalls in the statistical examination and interpretation of the correspondence between physician and patient satisfaction ratings and their relevance for shared decision making research
2011

Understanding Patient and Physician Satisfaction Ratings

Sample size: 1132 publication 10 minutes Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Hirsch Oliver, Keller Heidemarie, Albohn-Kühne Christina, Krones Tanja, Donner-Banzhoff Norbert

Primary Institution: Department of General Practice/Family Medicine, University of Marburg, Germany

Hypothesis

The study aims to evaluate methodological difficulties in calculating the correspondence between patient and physician satisfaction ratings and their relevance for shared decision making research.

Conclusion

Traditional statistical measures do not adequately capture the clinically relevant appreciation of the physician-patient relationship in skewed satisfaction ratings.

Supporting Evidence

  • Patients generally rated their satisfaction higher than physicians did.
  • The study found significant differences in satisfaction ratings between patients and physicians.
  • The Bland-Altman method provided a better understanding of the agreement between ratings than traditional statistical measures.
  • High ceiling effects were observed in patient satisfaction ratings.
  • Statistical measures indicated low correspondence between patient and physician satisfaction ratings.

Takeaway

Doctors and patients often have different views on how satisfied they are after a visit, and this study shows that the usual ways of measuring this might not be very helpful.

Methodology

The study used a structured tool for cardiovascular prevention in a cluster-randomised controlled trial, assessing satisfaction ratings with various statistical tests.

Potential Biases

Potential biases may arise from the skewed nature of satisfaction ratings and the methods used to analyze them.

Limitations

The study's findings may not generalize beyond the specific context of shared decision making in primary care.

Participant Demographics

The study involved 44 physicians and 550 patients in the intervention group, and 47 physicians and 582 patients in the control group.

Statistical Information

P-Value

<0.001

Confidence Interval

95% CI: -1.12 to -0.92 for lower limit, 95% CI: +1.60 to +1.81 for upper limit

Statistical Significance

p<0.001

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1186/1471-2288-11-71

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication