Lorayne Caroline Resende, Mariana Michel Barbosa, Cristiane de Paula Rezende, Laís Lessa Neiva Pantuza, Edna Afonso Reis, Mariana Martins Gonzaga Nascimento
{"title":"Instruments to measure patient satisfaction with comprehensive medication management (CMM) services: a scoping review","authors":"Lorayne Caroline Resende, Mariana Michel Barbosa, Cristiane de Paula Rezende, Laís Lessa Neiva Pantuza, Edna Afonso Reis, Mariana Martins Gonzaga Nascimento","doi":"10.1093/jphsr/rmad044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objectives To map the instruments to measure patient satisfaction with comprehensive medication management (CMM) services and to compare them according to their development characteristics and applicability of patient-reported outcome measures (PRO) measures. Methods A scoping review was conducted using the methodology proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Studies that developed or applied a patient satisfaction measurement instrument in CMM services, published from 1990 onwards were selected. The critical appraisal of the instruments identified was carried out using an 18 item checklist developed to systematically evaluate PRO measures. Key findings A total of 28 studies were selected; in most (17), the applied instruments had been developed by the authors. Nine of them were validated, most of which used open-ended and closed questions in self-administered printed instruments. The best-qualified instrument reached 11 out of the 18 evaluated items, highlighting the difficulty in the definition of the satisfaction construct. Conclusions The review made it possible to identify the instruments available to measure patient satisfaction with CMM services and to comparatively highlight their characteristics and psychometric properties. It also pointed out the need to improve or develop a patient satisfaction instrument for CMM services. However, improvement is needed in many of the evaluated domains of the instruments to meet the desirable requirements for a PRO measure. These gaps should be taken into consideration in future research, aiming to build a robust and standardized instrument for the CMM service.","PeriodicalId":16705,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jphsr/rmad044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract Objectives To map the instruments to measure patient satisfaction with comprehensive medication management (CMM) services and to compare them according to their development characteristics and applicability of patient-reported outcome measures (PRO) measures. Methods A scoping review was conducted using the methodology proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Studies that developed or applied a patient satisfaction measurement instrument in CMM services, published from 1990 onwards were selected. The critical appraisal of the instruments identified was carried out using an 18 item checklist developed to systematically evaluate PRO measures. Key findings A total of 28 studies were selected; in most (17), the applied instruments had been developed by the authors. Nine of them were validated, most of which used open-ended and closed questions in self-administered printed instruments. The best-qualified instrument reached 11 out of the 18 evaluated items, highlighting the difficulty in the definition of the satisfaction construct. Conclusions The review made it possible to identify the instruments available to measure patient satisfaction with CMM services and to comparatively highlight their characteristics and psychometric properties. It also pointed out the need to improve or develop a patient satisfaction instrument for CMM services. However, improvement is needed in many of the evaluated domains of the instruments to meet the desirable requirements for a PRO measure. These gaps should be taken into consideration in future research, aiming to build a robust and standardized instrument for the CMM service.