IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/clnure/v16y2007i2p119-137.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predictors of Patient Satisfaction With Telephone Nursing Services

Author

Listed:
  • Susan Randles Moscato

    (University of Portland, School of Nursing, Oregon)

  • Barbara Valanis

    (Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon)

  • Christina M. Gullion

    (Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon)

  • Christine Tanner

    (Oregon Health and Science University, Portland)

  • Susan E. Shapiro

    (University of California—San Francisco Medical Center)

  • Shigeko Izumi

    (Oregon Health and Science University, Portland)

Abstract

Patient satisfaction has been shown to be a factor in clinical outcomes, health care quality, and patient follow-through. Thus, a high level of satisfaction is a desired outcome of patient care. This article examines predictors of patient satisfaction with telephone nursing services among a sample of 1,939 respondents, using a conceptual model derived from the literature and preliminary work. The study was conducted in medical offices and call centers of a large national health maintenance organization. Calls were taped and content coded and then matched with caller questionnaire data. In the final multivariate predictive models, patient health status; caller ratings of expectations met by the nurse for listening, clarity, and collaboration; and nurse competence were the strongest predictors of satisfaction. Consistent with the literature, findings suggest that nurses should expand interpersonal communication skills, and systems should reduce barriers to effective listening, clarity, and collaboration with callers.

Suggested Citation

  • Susan Randles Moscato & Barbara Valanis & Christina M. Gullion & Christine Tanner & Susan E. Shapiro & Shigeko Izumi, 2007. "Predictors of Patient Satisfaction With Telephone Nursing Services," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 16(2), pages 119-137, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:clnure:v:16:y:2007:i:2:p:119-137
    DOI: 10.1177/1054773806298507
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1054773806298507
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1054773806298507?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guadagnoli, Edward & Ward, Patricia, 1998. "Patient participation in decision-making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 329-339, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    2. Lim, Jennifer N.W. & Edlin, Richard, 2009. "Preferences of older patients and choice of treatment location in the UK: A binary choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 252-257, August.
    3. Bin Ding & Wei Liu & Sang-Bing Tsai & Dongxiao Gu & Fang Bian & Xuefeng Shao, 2019. "Effect of Patient Participation on Nurse and Patient Outcomes in Inpatient Healthcare," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, April.
    4. Landmark, Anne Marie Dalby & Svennevig, Jan & Gulbrandsen, Pål, 2016. "Negotiating treatment preferences: Physicians' formulations of patients' stance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 26-36.
    5. Entwistle, Vikki & Williams, Brian & Skea, Zoe & MacLennan, Graeme & Bhattacharya, Siladitya, 2006. "Which surgical decisions should patients participate in and how? Reflections on women's recollections of discussions about variants of hysterectomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 499-509, January.
    6. Werner, Perla & Vered, Iris, 2002. "Women's knowledge of new regulations about publicly funded medications for osteoporosis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 275-284, June.
    7. Timmermans, Stefan & Tietbohl, Caroline, 2018. "Fifty years of sociological leadership at Social Science and Medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 209-215.
    8. Johnstone, Megan-Jane & Kanitsaki, Olga, 2009. "Engaging patients as safety partners: Some considerations for ensuring a culturally and linguistically appropriate approach," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 1-7, April.
    9. Saima Ghazal & Edward T. Cokely & Rocio Garcia-Retamero, 2014. "Predicting biases in very highly educated samples: Numeracy and metacognition," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(1), pages 15-34, January.
    10. Karolina Osowiecka & Radoslaw Sroda & Arian Saied & Marek Szwiec & Sarah Mangold & Dominika Osuch & Sergiusz Nawrocki & Monika Rucinska, 2020. "Patients’ Non-Medical and Organizational Needs during Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-16, August.
    11. O' Donnell, Máire & Monz, Brigitta & Hunskaar, Steinar, 2007. "General preferences for involvement in treatment decision making among European women with urinary incontinence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(9), pages 1914-1924, May.
    12. Fraser, Suzanne & Fomiatti, Renae & Moore, David & Seear, Kate & Aitken, Campbell, 2020. "Is another relationship possible? Connoisseurship and the doctor–patient relationship for men who consume performance and image-enhancing drugs," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    13. Bugge, Carol & Entwistle, Vikki A. & Watt, Ian S., 2006. "The significance for decision-making of information that is not exchanged by patients and health professionals during consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(8), pages 2065-2078, October.
    14. Francisco José García-Sánchez & Vicente Martínez-Vizcaíno & Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín, 2019. "Patients’ and Caregivers’ Conceptualisations of Pressure Ulcers and the Process of Decision-Making in the Context of Home Care," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-14, July.
    15. Mariusz Duplaga, 2016. "Searching for a Role of Nursing Personnel in Developing Landscape of Ehealth: Factors Determining Attitudes toward Key Patient Empowering Applications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-16, April.
    16. Floris Goerlandt & Jie Li & Genserik Reniers, 2020. "The Landscape of Risk Communication Research: A Scientometric Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-31, May.
    17. Moumjid, Nora & Charles, Cathy & Morelle, Magali & Gafni, Amiram & Brémond, Alain & Farsi, Fadila & Whelan, Tim & Carrère, Marie-Odile, 2009. "The statutory duty of physicians to inform patients versus unmet patients' information needs: The case of breast cancer in France," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 162-173, July.
    18. Jan Florin & Anna Ehrenberg & Margareta Ehnfors, 2006. "Patient participation in clinical decision‐making in nursing: a comparative study of nurses’ and patients’ perceptions," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(12), pages 1498-1508, December.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:1:p:15-34 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Shah, Mansi B. & Bentley, John P. & McCaffrey III, David J., 2006. "Evaluations of care by adults following a denial of an advertisement-related prescription drug request: The role of expectations, symptom severity, and physician communication style," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(4), pages 888-899, February.
    21. Prigge, Jana-Kristin & Dietz, Beatrix & Homburg, Christian & Hoyer, Wayne D. & Burton, Jennifer L., 2015. "Patient empowerment: A cross-disease exploration of antecedents and consequences," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 375-386.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:clnure:v:16:y:2007:i:2:p:119-137. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.