IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v4y2011i4p227-240.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Treatment Satisfaction Instruments for Different Purposes during a Product’s Lifecycle

Author

Listed:
  • Diana Rofail
  • Fiona Taylor
  • Antoine Regnault
  • Anna Filonenko

Abstract

This review investigates whether the development and implementation of treatment satisfaction instruments during a product’s lifecycle are informed by their purpose. A basic literature review was performed between 2000 and 2010 using electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO®, and EMBASE) and the keywords ‘satisfaction’ and ‘questionnaire’ and ‘medication’ or ‘drug’. Relevant articles were reviewed to extract the following information: type of study; study objectives; treatment satisfaction instrument used; clinical condition/indication; purpose of instrument; development of instrument; association of satisfaction with other endpoint measures; and main results and conclusions. Of 875 abstracts, 80 articles were further considered. Treatment satisfaction instruments were most commonly used in observational studies and interventional clinical trials. The review indicated similarities regarding the development and validation of satisfaction instruments, such as using patient input to derive the items and exploring classical measurement properties specific to the target population. Although some differences were apparent between instruments intended for use in clinical trials and clinical practice (e.g. the approaches used to enable the interpretation of satisfaction scores), the specificities of the implementation of treatment satisfaction during a product’s lifecycle were rarely considered. By ‘keeping the end in mind’, data from treatment satisfaction instruments can help at three key stages: (i) product access to market: generating evidence as part of an overall value proposition to facilitate product reimbursement at a national level; (ii) market access to product: making the product available at a local level (e.g. local hospital formularies); and (iii) clinical practice: enhancing market penetration and product expansion after launch, and demonstrating value for prescribers. Furthermore, the development, validation, and interpretation of scores from treatment satisfaction instruments should e sensitive to the intended purpose. By considering the stage in the product lifecycle when an instrument is to be used, treatment satisfaction instruments can be developed with the specific research purpose and target audience in mind — whether it be patients, payers, or prescribers. In the future, treatment satisfaction instruments will become increasingly important for informing decisions at the individual level, giving patients a voice towards their overall management and care, and enhancing the relationship between doctor and patient. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2011

Suggested Citation

  • Diana Rofail & Fiona Taylor & Antoine Regnault & Anna Filonenko, 2011. "Treatment Satisfaction Instruments for Different Purposes during a Product’s Lifecycle," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 4(4), pages 227-240, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:4:y:2011:i:4:p:227-240
    DOI: 10.2165/11595280-000000000-00000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/11595280-000000000-00000
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/11595280-000000000-00000?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sitzia, John & Wood, Neil, 1997. "Patient satisfaction: A review of issues and concepts," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(12), pages 1829-1843, December.
    2. Pascoe, Gregory C., 1983. "Patient satisfaction in primary health care: A literature review and analysis," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 6(3-4), pages 185-210, January.
    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. Vanacore, Amalia & Pellegrino, Maria Sole, 2021. "Testing inter-group ranking heterogeneity: do patient characteristics matter for prioritization of quality improvements in healthcare service?," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    2. Smaranda Adina Cosma & Marius Bota & Cristina Fleșeriu & Claudiu Morgovan & Mădălina Văleanu & Dan Cosma, 2020. "Measuring Patients’ Perception and Satisfaction with the Romanian Healthcare System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-16, February.
    3. Xesfingi, Sofia & Karamanis, Dimitrios, 2015. "In- and Out-patient satisfaction assessment: the case of a greek General Hospital," MPRA Paper 66672, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Pablo Cabrera-Barona & Thomas Blaschke & Stefan Kienberger, 2017. "Explaining Accessibility and Satisfaction Related to Healthcare: A Mixed-Methods Approach," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 133(2), pages 719-739, September.
    5. Weinhold, Ines & Gurtner, Sebastian, 2018. "Rural - urban differences in determinants of patient satisfaction with primary care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 76-85.
    6. Winfried Zinn & Sebastian Sauer & Richard Göllner, 2016. "The German Inpatient Satisfaction Scale," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(2), pages 21582440166, April.
    7. Hekkert, Karin Dorieke & Cihangir, Sezgin & Kleefstra, Sophia Martine & van den Berg, Bernard & Kool, Rudolf Bertijn, 2009. "Patient satisfaction revisited: A multilevel approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 68-75, July.
    8. Elena Druică & Viorel Mihăilă & Marin Burcea & Vasile Cepoi, 2019. "Combining Direct and Indirect Measurements to Assess Patients’ Satisfaction with the Quality of Public Health Services in Romania: Uncovering Structural Mechanisms and Their Implications," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-18, December.
    9. Susan P Sparkes & Rifat Atun & Till Bӓrnighausen, 2019. "The impact of the Family Medicine Model on patient satisfaction in Turkey: Panel analysis with province fixed effects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, January.
    10. Broome, Kieran & Worrall, Linda & Fleming, Jennifer & Boldy, Duncan, 2012. "Evaluation of flexible route bus transport for older people," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 85-91.
    11. Hyojung Tak & Gregory Ruhnke & Ya-Chen Shih, 2015. "The Association between Patient-Centered Attributes of Care and Patient Satisfaction," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(2), pages 187-197, April.
    12. Lannes, Laurence, 2015. "Improving health worker performance: The patient-perspective from a PBF program in Rwanda," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 1-11.
    13. Waleed Al Nadabi & Mohammed A Mohammed, 2019. "Arabic Language Surveys Measuring Mothers’ Satisfaction During Childbirth: A Review," Global Journal of Health Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(6), pages 169-169, June.
    14. Stefan Meinzer & Johann Prenninger & Patrick Vesel & Johannes Kornhuber & Judith Volmer & Joachim Hornegger & Björn M. Eskofier, 2016. "Translating satisfaction determination from health care to the automotive industry," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 10(4), pages 651-685, December.
    15. Atkinson, Sarah & Haran, Dave, 2005. "Individual and district scale determinants of users' satisfaction with primary health care in developing countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 501-513, February.
    16. Dyer, Thomas Anthony & Owens, Janine & Robinson, Peter Glenn, 2014. "The acceptability of care delegation in skill-mix: The salience of trust," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 170-178.
    17. Ángel Fernández Pérez & Ángeles Sánchez Domínguez, 2017. "Los factores no clínicos como determinantes de la satisfacción con el sistema sanitario público en España," FEG Working Paper Series 01/17, Faculty of Economics and Business (University of Granada).
    18. Valérie Buthion & Nathalie Dumet & Stéphanie Verfay-Bertaud & Mélissa Amate & Nathalie Havet, 2018. "EFFICARD - L’organisation des soins et la vie avec l’insuffisance cardiaque Etude exploratoire sur les interactions entre les patients et leur prise en charge," Working Papers hal-01989323, HAL.
    19. Michael Arias & Eric Rojas & Santiago Aguirre & Felipe Cornejo & Jorge Munoz-Gama & Marcos Sepúlveda & Daniel Capurro, 2020. "Mapping the Patient’s Journey in Healthcare through Process Mining," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-16, September.
    20. Radin, Dagmar, 2013. "Does corruption undermine trust in health care? Results from public opinion polls in Croatia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 46-53.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:patien:v:4:y:2011:i:4:p:227-240. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.