Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Email this article to a Colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Articles & Searches Download to citation manager Citing Articles via Google Scholar Articles by Simon, G. Articles by Ludman, E. Search for Related Content PubMed Citation Articles by Simon, G. Articles by Ludman, E. Patient Satisfaction, Quality of Life Research Design, Methodology

Are Comparisons of Consumer Satisfaction With Providers Biased by Nonresponse or Case-Mix Differences?

Dr. Simon, Dr. Rutter, Ms. Operskalski, and Dr. Ludman are affiliated with the Center for Health Studies and Mr. Crosier and Ms. Scott are with the Behavioral Health Service, all at the Group Health Cooperative, 1730 Minor Ave., Suite 1600, Seattle, WA 98101-1448 (e-mail: simon.g{at}ghc.org).

OBJECTIVE: This study examined how consumer satisfaction ratings differ between mental health care providers to determine whether comparison of ratings is biased by differences in survey response rates or consumer characteristics. METHODS: Consumer satisfaction surveys mailed by a mixed-model prepaid health plan were examined. Survey data were linked to computerized records regarding consumers' demographic (age, sex, and type of insurance coverage) and clinical (primary diagnosis and initial versus return visit) characteristics. Statistical models examined probabilities of returning the survey (N=8,025 returned surveys) and of giving an excellent satisfaction rating. Variability was separated into within-provider effects and between-provider effects. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 33.8%, and 49.9% of responders reported excellent satisfaction. Neither response rate nor satisfaction rating was related to primary diagnosis. Within the practices of individual providers, response rate and receiving an excellent rating were significantly associated with female sex, older age, longer enrollment in the health plan, and making a return visit. Analyses of between-provider effects, however, found that only a higher proportion of return visitors was significantly associated with higher response rates and higher satisfaction ratings. CONCLUSIONS: There was little evidence that differences in response rate or in consumers served biased comparison of satisfaction ratings between mental health providers. Bias might be greater in a setting with more heterogeneous consumers or providers. Returning consumers gave higher ratings than first-time visitors, and analyses of satisfaction ratings may need to account for this difference. Extremely high or low ratings should be interpreted cautiously, especially for providers with a small number of surveys.

Get information about faster international access.

Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2009 American Psychiatric Association. All rights reserved.

Home | Search | Current Issue | Past Issues | Subscribe | All APPI Journals | Help | Contact Us