Critical review of the validity of patient satisfaction questionnaires pertaining to oral health care

Rahul Nair, Sana Ishaque, Andrew John Spencer, Liana Luzzi, Loc Giang Do

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: Review the validation process reported for oral healthcare satisfaction scales that intended to measure general oral health care that is not restricted to specific subspecialties or interventions. Methods: After preliminary searches, PUBMED and EMBASE were searched using a broad search strategy, followed by a snowball strategy using the references of the publications included from database searches. Title and abstract were screened for assessing inclusion, followed by a full-text screening of these publications. English language publications on multi-item questionnaires that report on a scale measuring patient satisfaction for oral health care were included. Publications were excluded when they did not report on any psychometric validation, or the scales were addressing specific treatments or subspecialities in oral health care. Results: Fourteen instruments were identified from as many publications that report on their initial validation, while five more publications reported on further testing of the validity of these instruments. Number of items (range: 8-42) and dimension reported (range: 2-13) were often dissimilar between the assessed measurement instruments. There was also a lack of methodologies to incorporate patient's subjective perspective. Along with a limited reporting of psychometric properties of instruments, cross-cultural adaptations were limited to translation processes. Conclusions: The extent of validity and reliability of the included instruments was largely unassessed, and appropriate instruments for populations outside of those belonging to general adult populations were not present.

LanguageEnglish
Pages369-375
Number of pages7
JournalCommunity dentistry and oral epidemiology
Volume46
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2018

Keywords

  • dental services research
  • outcomes
  • program evaluation
  • quality of care

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Nair, Rahul ; Ishaque, Sana ; Spencer, Andrew John ; Luzzi, Liana ; Do, Loc Giang. / Critical review of the validity of patient satisfaction questionnaires pertaining to oral health care. In: Community dentistry and oral epidemiology. 2018 ; Vol. 46, No. 4. pp. 369-375.
@article{706399c92020459abd43ab476d6cef40,
title = "Critical review of the validity of patient satisfaction questionnaires pertaining to oral health care",
abstract = "Objectives: Review the validation process reported for oral healthcare satisfaction scales that intended to measure general oral health care that is not restricted to specific subspecialties or interventions. Methods: After preliminary searches, PUBMED and EMBASE were searched using a broad search strategy, followed by a snowball strategy using the references of the publications included from database searches. Title and abstract were screened for assessing inclusion, followed by a full-text screening of these publications. English language publications on multi-item questionnaires that report on a scale measuring patient satisfaction for oral health care were included. Publications were excluded when they did not report on any psychometric validation, or the scales were addressing specific treatments or subspecialities in oral health care. Results: Fourteen instruments were identified from as many publications that report on their initial validation, while five more publications reported on further testing of the validity of these instruments. Number of items (range: 8-42) and dimension reported (range: 2-13) were often dissimilar between the assessed measurement instruments. There was also a lack of methodologies to incorporate patient's subjective perspective. Along with a limited reporting of psychometric properties of instruments, cross-cultural adaptations were limited to translation processes. Conclusions: The extent of validity and reliability of the included instruments was largely unassessed, and appropriate instruments for populations outside of those belonging to general adult populations were not present.",
keywords = "dental services research, outcomes, program evaluation, quality of care",
author = "Rahul Nair and Sana Ishaque and Spencer, {Andrew John} and Liana Luzzi and Do, {Loc Giang}",
year = "2018",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/cdoe.12377",
language = "English",
volume = "46",
pages = "369--375",
journal = "Community dentistry and oral epidemiology",
issn = "0301-5661",
publisher = "Blackwell Munksgaard",
number = "4",

}

Critical review of the validity of patient satisfaction questionnaires pertaining to oral health care. / Nair, Rahul; Ishaque, Sana; Spencer, Andrew John; Luzzi, Liana; Do, Loc Giang.

In: Community dentistry and oral epidemiology, Vol. 46, No. 4, 01.08.2018, p. 369-375.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Critical review of the validity of patient satisfaction questionnaires pertaining to oral health care

AU - Nair, Rahul

AU - Ishaque, Sana

AU - Spencer, Andrew John

AU - Luzzi, Liana

AU - Do, Loc Giang

PY - 2018/8/1

Y1 - 2018/8/1

N2 - Objectives: Review the validation process reported for oral healthcare satisfaction scales that intended to measure general oral health care that is not restricted to specific subspecialties or interventions. Methods: After preliminary searches, PUBMED and EMBASE were searched using a broad search strategy, followed by a snowball strategy using the references of the publications included from database searches. Title and abstract were screened for assessing inclusion, followed by a full-text screening of these publications. English language publications on multi-item questionnaires that report on a scale measuring patient satisfaction for oral health care were included. Publications were excluded when they did not report on any psychometric validation, or the scales were addressing specific treatments or subspecialities in oral health care. Results: Fourteen instruments were identified from as many publications that report on their initial validation, while five more publications reported on further testing of the validity of these instruments. Number of items (range: 8-42) and dimension reported (range: 2-13) were often dissimilar between the assessed measurement instruments. There was also a lack of methodologies to incorporate patient's subjective perspective. Along with a limited reporting of psychometric properties of instruments, cross-cultural adaptations were limited to translation processes. Conclusions: The extent of validity and reliability of the included instruments was largely unassessed, and appropriate instruments for populations outside of those belonging to general adult populations were not present.

AB - Objectives: Review the validation process reported for oral healthcare satisfaction scales that intended to measure general oral health care that is not restricted to specific subspecialties or interventions. Methods: After preliminary searches, PUBMED and EMBASE were searched using a broad search strategy, followed by a snowball strategy using the references of the publications included from database searches. Title and abstract were screened for assessing inclusion, followed by a full-text screening of these publications. English language publications on multi-item questionnaires that report on a scale measuring patient satisfaction for oral health care were included. Publications were excluded when they did not report on any psychometric validation, or the scales were addressing specific treatments or subspecialities in oral health care. Results: Fourteen instruments were identified from as many publications that report on their initial validation, while five more publications reported on further testing of the validity of these instruments. Number of items (range: 8-42) and dimension reported (range: 2-13) were often dissimilar between the assessed measurement instruments. There was also a lack of methodologies to incorporate patient's subjective perspective. Along with a limited reporting of psychometric properties of instruments, cross-cultural adaptations were limited to translation processes. Conclusions: The extent of validity and reliability of the included instruments was largely unassessed, and appropriate instruments for populations outside of those belonging to general adult populations were not present.

KW - dental services research

KW - outcomes

KW - program evaluation

KW - quality of care

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044580830&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/cdoe.12377

DO - 10.1111/cdoe.12377

M3 - Article

VL - 46

SP - 369

EP - 375

JO - Community dentistry and oral epidemiology

T2 - Community dentistry and oral epidemiology

JF - Community dentistry and oral epidemiology

SN - 0301-5661

IS - 4

ER -