Tools for measuring client experiences and satisfaction with healthcare in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review of measurement properties

Abstract

Background Perspectives 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). Methods We 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. Results Of 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. Conclusion Reliability 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 registration CRD42020150438.

Bounded rationality in healthcare: unraveling the psychological factors behind patient satisfaction in China

“…The consumer satisfaction theories ( Afrashtehfar et al, 2020 ) that provided the initial framework for patient satisfaction have gradually incorporated a service quality model and expectancy confirmation theory to align themselves more closely with the characteristics of medical services ( Oh et al, 2022 ; Ali et al, 2023 ). However, these theories often fall short in real-world applications, particularly by failing to capture the emotional and psychological complexities that patients experience during medical interactions ( Bull et al, 2019 ; Banda et al, 2023 ). Numerous empirical studies have explored the factors influencing patient satisfaction, including medical service quality, doctor–patient relationships, and patient expectations ( Asif et al, 2019 ; Abu-Rumman et al, 2022 ).…”

Dimensions, social and healthcare setting determinants of client satisfaction for HIV/AIDS services: a systematic review

“…The World Health Organisation cherishes the significance of patient satisfaction in improving healthcare services everywhere in the world. These domains can be assessed using medical record reviews, direct patient feedback mechanisms, technology assisted devices (online platforms), and interviews (15)(16)(17). However, there was no comprehensive evidence about the clients' satisfaction with HIV/AIDS services despite original studies in different countries (18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23).…”