IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v16y1996i1p58-64.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient Satisfaction with Health Care Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Margaret Holmes-Rovner
  • Jill Kroll
  • Neal Schmitt
  • David R. Rovner
  • M. Lynn Breer
  • Marilyn L. Rothert
  • Georgia Padonu
  • Geraldine Talarczyk

Abstract

Patient satisfaction measures have previously addressed satisfaction with medical care, satisfaction with providers, and satisfaction with outcomes, but not satisfaction with the health care decision itself. As patients become more involved in health care decisions, it is important to understand specific dynamics of the decision itself The Satisfaction with Decision (SWD) scale measures satisfaction with health care decisions. It was developed in the context of postmenopausal hormone-replacement therapy decisions The six-item scale has excellent reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.86). Discriminant validity, tested by performing principal- components analysis of items pooled from the SWD scale and two conceptually related measures, was good. Correlation of the SWD scale with measures of satisfaction with other aspects of the decision-making process showed the SWD scale was correlated most highly (0.64) with "decisional confidence," and least with "desire to participate in health care de cisions" and "satisfaction with provider " The SWD scale predicts decision certainty in this study. Use in an independent study showed that the SWD scale was correlated with the likelihood of patients' intentions to get a flu shot. Further investigation in relation to other health decisions will establish the utility of the SWD scale as an outcome measure Key words: patient satisfaction; medical decision making; decision support (Med Decis Making 1996;16:58-64)

Suggested Citation

  • Margaret Holmes-Rovner & Jill Kroll & Neal Schmitt & David R. Rovner & M. Lynn Breer & Marilyn L. Rothert & Georgia Padonu & Geraldine Talarczyk, 1996. "Patient Satisfaction with Health Care Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(1), pages 58-64, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:16:y:1996:i:1:p:58-64
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9601600114
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9601600114
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9601600114?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yueh-Ling Liao & Tsae-Jyy Wang & Chien-Wei Su & Shu-Yuan Liang & Chieh-Yu Liu & Jun-Yu Fan, 2023. "Efficacy of a Decision Support Intervention on Decisional Conflict Related to Hepatocellular Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 32(1), pages 233-243, January.
    2. Yi-Chih Lee & Wei-Li Wu, 2019. "Shared Decision Making and Choice for Bariatric Surgery," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-14, December.
    3. Omar Shamieh & Ghadeer Alarjeh & Mohammad Al Qadire & Waleed Alrjoub & Mahmoud Abu-Nasser & Fadi Abu Farsakh & Abdelrahman AlHawamdeh & Mohammad Al-Omari & Zaid Amin & Omar Ayaad & Amal Al-Tabba & Dav, 2023. "Decision-Making Preferences among Advanced Cancer Patients in a Palliative Setting in Jordan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(8), pages 1-13, April.
    4. Richard L. Street JR & Becky Voigt, 1997. "Patient Participation in Deciding Breast Cancer Treatment and Subsequent Quality of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(3), pages 298-306, July.
    5. Sjaak Molenaar & Mirjam A.G. Sprangers & Fenna C.E. Postma-Schuit & Emiel J. Th. Rutgers & Josje Noorlander & Joop Hendriks & Hanneke C.J.M. De Haes, 2000. "Interpretive Review : Feasibility and Effects of Decision Aids," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(1), pages 112-127, January.
    6. Blanca Lumbreras & Lucy Anne Parker & Pablo Alonso-Coello & Javier Mira-Bernabeu & Luis Gómez-Pérez & Juan Pablo Caballero-Romeu & Salvador Pertusa-Martínez & Ana Cebrián-Cuenca & Irene Moral-Peláez &, 2022. "PROSHADE Protocol: Designing and Evaluating a Decision Aid for Promoting Shared Decision Making in Opportunistic Screening for Prostate Cancer: A Mix-Method Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-9, July.

    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:medema:v:16:y:1996:i:1:p:58-64. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.