ArticleZdravstveno varstvo2025
Patients' Experience with Received Healthcare in Internal Medicine and Surgery Wards of Slovenian Hospitals-A Cross-Sectional Survey.
Article in Zdravstveno varstvo, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Mapping Slovenia's global health engagement: alignment with European Union and national global health strategies.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The aim of the study was to explore the experiences of patients with delivered healthcare in selected Slovenian hospitals. Methods: A cross-sectional study was employed. A total of 1,748 patients participated. A shortened version of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey was used. Permission to conduct the study was obtained from the Slovenian Medical Ethics Committee. Data were collected between February and March 2020. Univariate, bivariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. Results: The average hospital rating was 8.86 (SD=1.47; p<0.001) out of 10. The hospital would be definitely recommended to others by 1,290 (75.7%) respondents. The regression model "patients' experience with care" was explained in 18%, mostly by "patients' general health status" (-0.267), "provision of written and oral information about symptoms or health problems post discharge" (-0.200), and "talking to patients about care post discharge" (-0.175). The model "hospital rate" was explained in 30.4% by "patients' experience with care" (0.576), "new medication was explained" (-0.242) and "patient age" (0.132). Conclusion: The hospital rates are good and mostly explained by patient experience. The results revealed that tasks connected to comprehensive preparation of patients for healthcare treatment including communication, health education and appropriate discharge are only partially fulfilled. Improvements and holistic data capture are needed to make the measurement of patient experience a greater contribution to the improvement and efficiency of hospital care.
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.