Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Validation of an instrument for measuring satisfaction of patients undergoing hemodialysis

Authors: Mauricio Sanabria-Arenas, Julia Tobón- Marín, María Claudia Certuche-Quintana, Ricardo Sánchez-Pedraza

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Patients’ satisfaction is an indicator of the quality of healthcare services. Its measurement involves developing and validating complex instruments. The purpose of this study was to validate a scale for measuring hemodialysis patients’ satisfaction with the provided care, the Scale for Evaluation of Hemodialysis Patient’s Satisfaction with Service provided at a Chronic Kidney Disease Unit (or ESUR-HD, its acronym in Spanish).

Methods

The instrument was applied to 370 patients undergoing hemodialysis for undertaking exploratory and confirmatory analyses, internal consistency assessment, and Rasch analysis. In order to assure test-retest reliability, the instrument was applied once again to 54 patients after 2 days. Convergent validity was assessed by estimating correlation coefficients based on the results of 2 instruments (ESUR-HD and SDIALOR) simultaneously applied in 70 patients. Sensitivity to change was assessed in 40 patients by comparing the scale scores before and after an intervention consisting of improved care conditions.

Results

In the 44 items of the scale a 9-factor structure was found (1: Facilities and organization of the service. 2: Care provided by the attending nurses and/or nursing assistants. 3: Attention to psychological and administrative issues. 4: Contact and social work personnel. 5: Medical attention and care. 6: Nutritional attention and care. 7: Medications supply and quality. 8: Features of the admission process. 9: Attention and care provided by head nurses). Chronbach alpha for the scale was 0.96. Lin’s concordance correlation for the whole scale was 0.85. Although statistically different from 0, low correlation values with dimensions from another scale measuring the same attribute were found. The scale could detect construct changes through increased scores in specific dimensions following an intervention aimed at enhancing satisfaction. Rasch analysis located improperly fit items and suggested reducing items measurement levels. Despite the effect encountered, Rasch analysis showed the scale might not capture variability in upper attribute levels.

Conclusion

The ESUR-HD scale measures hemodialysis patients’ satisfaction in one dimension with 9 domains. Validity and reliability are adequate. The instrument may detect changes in the construct. Subsequent versions of the scale should include new items allowing improved discrimination amongst high satisfaction levels.

Trial registration

ISRCTN45318400. April 05, 2017
Literature
1.
Nguyen Thi PL, Frimat L, Loos-Ayav C, Kessler M, Briancon S. SDIALOR: a dialysis patient satisfaction questionnaire. Nephrol Ther. 2008;4(4):266–77.CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
Gasquet I. Patient satisfaction and hospital performance. Presse Med. 1999;28(29):1610–3.PubMed
4.
Carr-Hill RA. The measurement of patient satisfaction. J Public Health Med. 1992;14(3):236–49.PubMed
5.
Bodenheimer T. The American health care system--the movement for improved quality in health care. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(6):488–92.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Chassin MR. Improving quality of care with practice guidelines. Front Health Serv Manage. 1993;10(1):40–4.PubMed
7.
Chassin MR. Quality of health care. Part 3: improving the quality of care. N Engl J Med. 1996;335(14):1060–3.CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
Wasserfallen JB, Halabi G, Saudan P, Perneger T, Feldman HI, Martin PY, et al. Quality of life on chronic dialysis: comparison between haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2004;19(6):1594–9.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Kirchgessner J, Perera-Chang M, Klinkner G, Soley I, Marcelli D, Arkossy O, et al. Satisfaction with care in peritoneal dialysis patients. Kidney Int. 2006;70(7):1325–31.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Kimmel PL. Psychosocial factors in adult end-stage renal disease patients treated with hemodialysis: correlates and outcomes. American J Kidney Dis. 2000;35(4 Suppl 1):S132–40.CrossRef
12.
13.
14.
Juergensen PH, Zemchenkov A, Watnick S, Finkelstein S, Wuerth D, Finkelstein FO. Comparison of quality-of-life assessment in Russia and the United States in chronic peritoneal dialysis patients. Advances in peritoneal dialysis Conference on Peritoneal Dialysis. 2002;18:55–7.PubMed
15.
Kovac JA, Patel SS, Peterson RA, Kimmel PL. Patient satisfaction with care and behavioral compliance in end-stage renal disease patients treated with hemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2002;39(6):1236–44.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Wuerth DB, Finkelstein SH, Kliger AS, Finkelstein FO. Patient assessment of quality of care in a chronic peritoneal dialysis facility. Am J Kidney Dis. 2000;35(4):638–43.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Rubin HR, Jenckes M, Fink NE, Meyer K, Wu AW, Bass EB, et al. Patient’s view of dialysis care: development of a taxonomy and rating of importance of different aspects of care. CHOICE study. Choices for Healthy Outcomes in Caring for ESRD. Am J Kidney. 1997;30(6):793–801.CrossRef
18.
Wasserfallen JB, Moinat M, Halabi G, Saudan P, Perneger T, Feldman HI, et al. Satisfaction of patients on chronic haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. Swiss Med Wkly. 2006;136(13–14):210–7.PubMed
19.
Rubin HR, Fink NE, Plantinga LC, Sadler JH, Kliger AS, Powe NR. Patient ratings of dialysis care with peritoneal dialysis vs hemodialysis. JAMA. 2004;291(6):697–703.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Van der Veer SN, Jager KJ, Visserman E, Beekman RJ, Boeschoten EW, de Keizer NF, et al. Development and validation of the Consumer Quality index instrument to measure the experience and priority of chronic dialysis patients. Nephrol Dial, Transplant. 2012;27(8):3284–91.CrossRef
21.
Barendse SM, Speight J, Bradley C. The Renal Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (RTSQ): a measure of satisfaction with treatment for chronic kidney failure. Am J Kidney Dis. 2005;45(3):572–9.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Wood R, Paoli CJ, Hays RD, Taylor-Stokes G, Piercy J, Gitlin M. Evaluation of the consumer assessment of healthcare providers and systems in-center hemodialysis survey. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014;9(6):1099–108.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Sanabria M, Tobón J, Certuche MC, Sánchez R. Adaptación transcultural del cuestionario SDIALOR para su utilización en Colombia. Rev Fac Med Univ Nac Colomb. 2015;63(1):8.
24.
Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales : a practical guide to their development and use. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008. p. 431. xvii.CrossRef
25.
Crawford AV, Green SB, Levy R, Lo WJ, Scott L, Svetina D, et al. Evaluation of Parallel Analysis Methods for Determining the Number of Factors. Educ Psychol Meas. 2012;70(6):885–901.CrossRef
26.
Hu LT. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999;61(1):1–55.CrossRef
27.
McCallum R, Browne M, Sugawara H. Power Analysis and determination of samle size for covariance structure modeling. Psychol Methods. 1996;1(2):130–49.CrossRef
28.
DBonett D. Sample size requirements for testing and estimating coefficient alpha. J Educ Behav Stat. 2002;27:335–40.CrossRef
29.
Lin LIK, Hedayat A, Wu W. Statistical tools for measuring agreement. New York: Springer; 2012. p. 161. xvi.CrossRef
30.
Linacre JM. Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. J Appl Meas. 2002;3(1):85–106.PubMed
31.
Wright B, Linacre M. Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions. 1994;8(3):370.
32.
DeMars C. Item response theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010. p. 131.CrossRef
33.
Weidmer BA, Cleary PD, Keller S, Evensen C, Hurtado MP, Kosiak B, et al. Development and evaluation of the CAHPS (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) survey for in-center hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2014;64(5):753–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Moret L, Nguyen JM, Pillet N, Falissard B, Lombrail P, Gasquet I. Improvement of psychometric properties of a scale measuring inpatient satisfaction with care: a better response rate and a reduction of the ceiling effect. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:197.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Karabatsos G. A critique of Rasch residual fit statistics. J Appl Meas. 2000;1(2):152–76.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Validation of an instrument for measuring satisfaction of patients undergoing hemodialysis
Authors
Mauricio Sanabria-Arenas
Julia Tobón- Marín
María Claudia Certuche-Quintana
Ricardo Sánchez-Pedraza
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2251-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Health Services Research 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

Greater involvement of HIV-infected peer-mothers in provision of reproductive health services as “family planning champions” increases referrals and uptake of family planning among HIV-infected mothers

Research article

Mandatory TB notification in Mysore city, India: Have we heard the private practitioner’s plea?

Research article

Determinants of effective vaccine coverage in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review and interpretive synthesis

Research article

Barriers to utilization of postnatal care at village level in Klaten district, central Java Province, Indonesia

Research article

Dignity in people with frontotemporal dementia and similar disorders — a qualitative study of the perspective of family caregivers

Research article

Current status, challenges and the way forward for clinical pharmacy service in Ethiopian public hospitals