SynthesisBMC health services research2023
Tools for measuring client experiences and satisfaction with healthcare in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review of measurement properties.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Experiences and self-reported outcomes of abortion care in Sub-Saharan countries: a mixed methods systematic review.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2026Pooled it
- Scoping Review of Outcome Measures Used in Lived Experience-Led Mental Health Services.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Empathy, access, and delays: determinants of oncology care satisfaction in Polish academic and nonacademic hospitals.The oncologist · 2026Article
- Psychometric Evaluation of a Novel Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire in a Postgraduate Orthodontic Department.Journal of dental education · 2026Article
- Parental satisfaction with neonatal care in tertiary hospitals in Nigeria: a multicenter cross-sectional study.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Healthcare satisfaction and associated factors between insured and uninsured women in the Sidama region, Ethiopia.npj health systems · 2026Article
- Psychometric and qualitative assessment of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 (CSQ-8) among Syrian mental health and psychosocial support service users.BJPsych open · 2026Article
- Barriers and facilitators to using patient-reported experience measures for diabetes care: a qualitative study in Thailand.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Dietary intake characteristics in older adults: A systematic review of physical, social, psychological, and behavioral limitations.JAR life · 2026Article
- Implementation of the community health system innovation project in three low- and middle-income countries: COHESION-I study protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
- 'One woman, one bed': prevalence and factors associated with women's experiences of respectful birth in urban Dar es Salaam, Tanzania - across-sectional survey.Global health action · 2025Article
- Evaluation of artificial intelligence robot's knowledge and reliability on dental implants and peri-implant phenotype.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Bounded rationality in healthcare: unraveling the psychological factors behind patient satisfaction in China.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Inpatient Satisfaction on Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Acute Settings: A Systematic Review.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPerspectives of patients as clients on healthcare offer unique insights into the process and outcomes of care and can facilitate improvements in the quality of services. Differences in the tools used to measure these perspectives often reflect differences in the conceptualization of quality of care and personal experiences. This systematic review assesses the validity and reliability of instruments measuring client experiences and satisfaction with healthcare in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
methodsWe performed a systematic search of studies published in PubMed, SCOPUS, and CINAHL. This review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies describing the development and psychometric properties of client experience and satisfaction with general health care were included in the review. Critical appraisal of study design was undertaken using the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS). The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist and Terwee's criteria were used to appraise the psychometric properties of the included studies. A narrative synthesis approach was used in the interpretation of the findings.
resultsOf the 7470 records identified, 12 studies with 14 corresponding instruments met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final review. No study assessed all the psychometric properties highlighted by the COSMIN criteria. In most instruments, we found evidence that initial development work incorporated client participation. The most evaluated measurement properties were content validity, internal consistency, and structural validity. Measurement error and responsiveness were not reported in any study.
conclusionReliability and validity should be considered important elements when choosing or developing an instrument for professionals seeking an effective instrument for use within the population. Our review identified limitations in the psychometric properties of patient experience and satisfaction instruments, and none met all methodological quality standards. Future studies should focus on further developing and testing available measures for their effectiveness in clinical practice. Furthermore, the development of new instruments should incorporate clients' views and be rigorously tested or validated in studies with high methodological quality.
trial registrationCRD42020150438.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.