Attempts to Limit Censoring in Measures of Patient Satisfaction

Background: Measures of patient satisfaction are increasingly used to measure patient experience. Most satisfaction measures have notable ceiling effects, which limits our ability to learn from variation among relatively satisfied patients. This study tested a variety of single-question satisfaction...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Cindy Nguyen BSc, Joost T P Kortlever MD, Amanda I Gonzalez MD, David Ring MD, PhD, Laura E Brown PhD, Jason R Somogyi MD
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2020-12-01
Series:Journal of Patient Experience
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/2374373520930468
id doaj-f807243073794225948779e1be7c78ea
record_format Article
spelling doaj-f807243073794225948779e1be7c78ea2021-01-05T01:37:19ZengSAGE PublishingJournal of Patient Experience2374-37352374-37432020-12-01710.1177/2374373520930468Attempts to Limit Censoring in Measures of Patient SatisfactionCindy Nguyen BSc0Joost T P Kortlever MD1Amanda I Gonzalez MD2David Ring MD, PhD3Laura E Brown PhD4Jason R Somogyi MD5 Department of Surgery and Perioperative Care, Dell Medical School—The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA Department of Surgery and Perioperative Care, Dell Medical School—The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA Department of Surgery and Perioperative Care, Dell Medical School—The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA Department of Surgery and Perioperative Care, Dell Medical School—The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA Center for Health Communication, Dell Medical School—The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA Orthopaedic Surgery, Texas Orthopedics, Austin, TX, USABackground: Measures of patient satisfaction are increasingly used to measure patient experience. Most satisfaction measures have notable ceiling effects, which limits our ability to learn from variation among relatively satisfied patients. This study tested a variety of single-question satisfaction measures for their mean overall score, ceiling and floor effect, and data distribution. In addition, we assessed the correlation between satisfaction and psychological factors and assessed how the various methods for measuring satisfaction affected net promoter scores (NPSs). Methodology: A total of 212 patients visiting orthopedic offices were enrolled in this randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomized to 1 of 5 newly designed, single-question satisfaction scales: (a) a helpfulness 11-point ordinal scale from 0 to 10, (b) a helpfulness ordinal 11-point scale from 0 to 5 (ie, with 1.5, 2.5, etc), (c) a helpfulness 100-point slider, (d) a satisfaction 11-point ordinal scale from 0 to 10, and (e) a willingness to recommend 11-point ordinal scale from 0 to 10. Additionally, patients completed the 2-item Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ-2), 5-item Short Health Anxiety Inventory (SHAI-5) Scale, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Depression. We assessed mean and median score, ceiling and floor effect, and skewness and kurtosis for each scale. Spearman’s correlation tests were used to test correlations between satisfaction and psychological status. Finally, we assessed the NPS for the various scales. Results: Ceiling effects ranged from 29% to 68%. The 11-point ordinal helpfulness scale from 0 to 10 had the least ceiling effect (29%). All of the scales were asymmetrically distributed, with the 11-point ordinal scale from 0 to 5 having the most Gaussian distribution (skew = 0.64 and kurtosis = 2.3). Satisfaction scores did not correlate with psychological factors: PSEQ-2 ( r = 0.04; P = .57), SHAI-5 ( r = 0.01; P = .93), and PROMIS Depression ( r = −0.04; P = .61). Net promoter scores varied substantially by scale design, with higher scores corresponding with greater ceiling effects. Conclusions: Variations in scale types, text anchors, and lead-in statements do not eliminate the ceiling effect of single-question measures of satisfaction with a visit to an orthopedic specialist. Further studies might test other scale designs and labels. Level of Evidence: Diagnostic; Level IIhttps://doi.org/10.1177/2374373520930468
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Cindy Nguyen BSc
Joost T P Kortlever MD
Amanda I Gonzalez MD
David Ring MD, PhD
Laura E Brown PhD
Jason R Somogyi MD
spellingShingle Cindy Nguyen BSc
Joost T P Kortlever MD
Amanda I Gonzalez MD
David Ring MD, PhD
Laura E Brown PhD
Jason R Somogyi MD
Attempts to Limit Censoring in Measures of Patient Satisfaction
Journal of Patient Experience
author_facet Cindy Nguyen BSc
Joost T P Kortlever MD
Amanda I Gonzalez MD
David Ring MD, PhD
Laura E Brown PhD
Jason R Somogyi MD
author_sort Cindy Nguyen BSc
title Attempts to Limit Censoring in Measures of Patient Satisfaction
title_short Attempts to Limit Censoring in Measures of Patient Satisfaction
title_full Attempts to Limit Censoring in Measures of Patient Satisfaction
title_fullStr Attempts to Limit Censoring in Measures of Patient Satisfaction
title_full_unstemmed Attempts to Limit Censoring in Measures of Patient Satisfaction
title_sort attempts to limit censoring in measures of patient satisfaction
publisher SAGE Publishing
series Journal of Patient Experience
issn 2374-3735
2374-3743
publishDate 2020-12-01
description Background: Measures of patient satisfaction are increasingly used to measure patient experience. Most satisfaction measures have notable ceiling effects, which limits our ability to learn from variation among relatively satisfied patients. This study tested a variety of single-question satisfaction measures for their mean overall score, ceiling and floor effect, and data distribution. In addition, we assessed the correlation between satisfaction and psychological factors and assessed how the various methods for measuring satisfaction affected net promoter scores (NPSs). Methodology: A total of 212 patients visiting orthopedic offices were enrolled in this randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomized to 1 of 5 newly designed, single-question satisfaction scales: (a) a helpfulness 11-point ordinal scale from 0 to 10, (b) a helpfulness ordinal 11-point scale from 0 to 5 (ie, with 1.5, 2.5, etc), (c) a helpfulness 100-point slider, (d) a satisfaction 11-point ordinal scale from 0 to 10, and (e) a willingness to recommend 11-point ordinal scale from 0 to 10. Additionally, patients completed the 2-item Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ-2), 5-item Short Health Anxiety Inventory (SHAI-5) Scale, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Depression. We assessed mean and median score, ceiling and floor effect, and skewness and kurtosis for each scale. Spearman’s correlation tests were used to test correlations between satisfaction and psychological status. Finally, we assessed the NPS for the various scales. Results: Ceiling effects ranged from 29% to 68%. The 11-point ordinal helpfulness scale from 0 to 10 had the least ceiling effect (29%). All of the scales were asymmetrically distributed, with the 11-point ordinal scale from 0 to 5 having the most Gaussian distribution (skew = 0.64 and kurtosis = 2.3). Satisfaction scores did not correlate with psychological factors: PSEQ-2 ( r = 0.04; P = .57), SHAI-5 ( r = 0.01; P = .93), and PROMIS Depression ( r = −0.04; P = .61). Net promoter scores varied substantially by scale design, with higher scores corresponding with greater ceiling effects. Conclusions: Variations in scale types, text anchors, and lead-in statements do not eliminate the ceiling effect of single-question measures of satisfaction with a visit to an orthopedic specialist. Further studies might test other scale designs and labels. Level of Evidence: Diagnostic; Level II
url https://doi.org/10.1177/2374373520930468
work_keys_str_mv AT cindynguyenbsc attemptstolimitcensoringinmeasuresofpatientsatisfaction
AT joosttpkortlevermd attemptstolimitcensoringinmeasuresofpatientsatisfaction
AT amandaigonzalezmd attemptstolimitcensoringinmeasuresofpatientsatisfaction
AT davidringmdphd attemptstolimitcensoringinmeasuresofpatientsatisfaction
AT lauraebrownphd attemptstolimitcensoringinmeasuresofpatientsatisfaction
AT jasonrsomogyimd attemptstolimitcensoringinmeasuresofpatientsatisfaction
_version_ 1724348675288727552