净推荐值(NPS):净推荐值在继续医学教育评估中提供了什么?

Journal of European CME Pub Date : 2022-11-29 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1080/21614083.2022.2152941
Katie Stringer Lucero
{"title":"净推荐值(NPS):净推荐值在继续医学教育评估中提供了什么?","authors":"Katie Stringer Lucero","doi":"10.1080/21614083.2022.2152941","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Net promoter Score (NPS) has been used in many fields, such as software, clinical care, and websites, as a measure of customer satisfaction since 2003. With a single question, NPS methodology is thought to determine brand loyalty and intent to act based on experiences with the brand or product. In the current study, accredited continuing medical education or continuing education (CME/CE) was the product. Providers of CME have utilised NPS rating (the individual score on a scale of 0 to 10) to collect data about the value of the experience a clinician has with CME activities, but there has been no research to examine what it actually is associated with. This study looked to understand - relative to other self-reported and assessment outcomes in CME, what does NPS at the activity level indicate? From 155 online CME programmes (29,696 target audience learners with complete data), potential outcomes of CME, including whether knowledge or competence improved via assessment score, mean post-confidence rating, and whether one intended practices changes and was committed to those changes, were examined as predictors of NPS. NPS is unique in that it cannot be calculated at the individual level; individual scores must be aggregated, and then the percentage who selected ratings of 0 to 5 is subtracted from the percentage who selected 9 or 10. Results showed that percentage of learners who are committed to change predicts 70% of the variance in NPS, which suggests NPS is a valid indicator of intention to act. These results have implications for how we might, as a field, incorporate the utilisation of a single standardised question to examine the potential impact of online CME and call for additional research on whether NPS predicts change in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":87300,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European CME","volume":"11 1","pages":"2152941"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/b3/48/ZJEC_11_2152941.PMC9718547.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Net Promoter Score (NPS): What Does Net Promoter Score Offer in the Evaluation of Continuing Medical Education?\",\"authors\":\"Katie Stringer Lucero\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21614083.2022.2152941\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Net promoter Score (NPS) has been used in many fields, such as software, clinical care, and websites, as a measure of customer satisfaction since 2003. With a single question, NPS methodology is thought to determine brand loyalty and intent to act based on experiences with the brand or product. In the current study, accredited continuing medical education or continuing education (CME/CE) was the product. Providers of CME have utilised NPS rating (the individual score on a scale of 0 to 10) to collect data about the value of the experience a clinician has with CME activities, but there has been no research to examine what it actually is associated with. This study looked to understand - relative to other self-reported and assessment outcomes in CME, what does NPS at the activity level indicate? From 155 online CME programmes (29,696 target audience learners with complete data), potential outcomes of CME, including whether knowledge or competence improved via assessment score, mean post-confidence rating, and whether one intended practices changes and was committed to those changes, were examined as predictors of NPS. NPS is unique in that it cannot be calculated at the individual level; individual scores must be aggregated, and then the percentage who selected ratings of 0 to 5 is subtracted from the percentage who selected 9 or 10. Results showed that percentage of learners who are committed to change predicts 70% of the variance in NPS, which suggests NPS is a valid indicator of intention to act. These results have implications for how we might, as a field, incorporate the utilisation of a single standardised question to examine the potential impact of online CME and call for additional research on whether NPS predicts change in clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of European CME\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"2152941\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/b3/48/ZJEC_11_2152941.PMC9718547.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of European CME\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21614083.2022.2152941\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of European CME","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21614083.2022.2152941","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

自2003年以来,净推荐值(NPS)已被用于许多领域,如软件、临床护理和网站,作为衡量客户满意度的指标。通过一个简单的问题,NPS方法被认为是根据品牌或产品的经验来确定品牌忠诚度和行动意图。在目前的研究中,认可的继续医学教育或继续教育(CME/CE)是产品。继续医学教育的提供者利用NPS评分(0到10分的个人得分)来收集临床医生在继续医学教育活动中所获得的经验价值的数据,但还没有研究来检验它实际上与什么有关。本研究旨在了解-相对于CME的其他自我报告和评估结果,活动水平的NPS表明了什么?从155个在线CME课程(29,696个目标受众学习者的完整数据)中,研究了CME的潜在结果,包括知识或能力是否通过评估分数得到改善,平均信心后评级,以及一个人是否打算改变实践并致力于这些改变,作为NPS的预测因素。国民年金的独特之处在于,它不能在个人层面上计算;必须汇总个人分数,然后从选择9或10的百分比中减去选择0到5的百分比。结果表明,学习者承诺改变的百分比预测了NPS方差的70%,这表明NPS是一个有效的行动意愿指标。这些结果暗示了我们作为一个领域,如何整合单一标准化问题的利用来检查在线CME的潜在影响,并呼吁对NPS是否预测临床实践中的变化进行额外的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Net Promoter Score (NPS): What Does Net Promoter Score Offer in the Evaluation of Continuing Medical Education?

Net promoter Score (NPS) has been used in many fields, such as software, clinical care, and websites, as a measure of customer satisfaction since 2003. With a single question, NPS methodology is thought to determine brand loyalty and intent to act based on experiences with the brand or product. In the current study, accredited continuing medical education or continuing education (CME/CE) was the product. Providers of CME have utilised NPS rating (the individual score on a scale of 0 to 10) to collect data about the value of the experience a clinician has with CME activities, but there has been no research to examine what it actually is associated with. This study looked to understand - relative to other self-reported and assessment outcomes in CME, what does NPS at the activity level indicate? From 155 online CME programmes (29,696 target audience learners with complete data), potential outcomes of CME, including whether knowledge or competence improved via assessment score, mean post-confidence rating, and whether one intended practices changes and was committed to those changes, were examined as predictors of NPS. NPS is unique in that it cannot be calculated at the individual level; individual scores must be aggregated, and then the percentage who selected ratings of 0 to 5 is subtracted from the percentage who selected 9 or 10. Results showed that percentage of learners who are committed to change predicts 70% of the variance in NPS, which suggests NPS is a valid indicator of intention to act. These results have implications for how we might, as a field, incorporate the utilisation of a single standardised question to examine the potential impact of online CME and call for additional research on whether NPS predicts change in clinical practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信