Table 4.

Predictors of patient satisfaction in oncology (convenience sample and retrospective study designs)

Author/year, place of study	Data collection	Type of study, sample size, response rate	Cancer types	Study questionnaire, number of items	Key predictors	Conclusion
Brown 2008, USA28	NA	Study sample a part of large randomized trial, 432, 91.4%	Breast	Patient Services Received Scale (PSRS), 15 and Patient Request for Services Schedule (PRFSS), 15	The number of met desires, levels of concordance between physician and patient concerning the information and emotion content in the consultation, physician–patient concordance concerning which items were important such as risks and side effects of treatment	Although patient expectations were not well met and physician–patient discord was high about the content of consultations and the importance of consultation items, patients reported high levels of satisfaction. Expectation fulfillment and levels of concordance predicted satisfaction
Can 2008, Turkey45	3-month period	Convenience sample, 65, 83%	Lymphoma and others	Oncology Patients’ Perceptions of the Quality of Nursing Care Scale-Short Form (OPPQNCS-SF), 18	Marital status, presence of social health insurance, educational level, occupation, employment status, stage of cancer, number of hospitalizations	The level of satisfaction was lower for men, compared to women. Those with poor income level, compared to those with good income level, had a lower level of satisfaction for individualization subscale and for proficiency subscale
Bredart 2007, Europeancountries and Taiwan46	May 2002 to June 2004	Convenience sample, 762, 85%	NA	European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer inpatient satisfaction questionnaire EORTC INPATSAT32, 32	Number of nurses and doctors per bed, institution size, geo-cultural origin, ward setting, teaching/nonteaching setting, treatment toxicity, global health status, participation in clinical trials and education level	A number of treatment and institutional factors are associated significantly with hospitalized cancer patients’ satisfaction with doctors’ and nurses’ interpersonal care, information provision, availability and overall satisfaction with care
Sandoval 2006, Canada47	April 1999 and September 2000	Retrospective, 2275, 98.7%	Breast, colon, bladder, lung, prostate, uterine, ovary, digestive system and others	Modified version of an inpatient satisfaction questionnaire developed by Parkside Associates Inc., NA	Skills of nursing staff, courtesy of nursing staff, courtesy of people who drew blood, courtesy of people who delivered food, cleanliness of hospital in general	This study identifies an efficient approach to improving the score of patients’ overall perceptions of the quality of care received. By focusing on these aspects of care, hospitals may be able to improve the allocation of scarce resources when planning patient satisfaction improvement initiatives
Liekweg 2005, Germany48	NA	Convenience sample, 232, 65%	Mammary, ovarian and others	Patient Satisfaction with Cancer Treatment Education (PS-CaTE) questionnaire, 14	Diagnosis of a mammary carcinoma, recent diagnosis, treatment by a primary-care oncologist	The version of the questionnaire with a total of 14 items seems to be suitable for measuring patient satisfaction with information on cancer treatment
Walker 2003, USA49	Second half of 1999	Retrospective, 109, 53%	Head and neck ENT, GI/colorectal	Anonymous survey, 15	Younger age, female, greater attention to how patients were coping with their illness, having a chance to discuss one’s feelings about the diagnosis, staff attention to other psychosocial issues	Patient satisfaction was predicted by younger age, female gender, and greater attention to how patients were coping with their illness
Eide 2002, Norway50	NA	Convenience sample, 61, 74%	Breast, head and neck, gastrointestinal, urologic and others	The questionnaire contains developed by Hall, 1963	High degree of informal talk, psychosocial exchange during the physical examination	Patients were found to be dissatisfied if the physician had focused on a great deal of psychosocial exchange during physical examination. Our study suggests that the physician should not initiate discussion of psychosocial topics during physical exam
Jones 1999, Glasgow51	NA	Convenience sample, 715, 73.4%	Breast, prostate, cervical, laryngeal	Anonymous questionnaire, NA	Age, gender, depression or anxiety and information needed	Patients most commonly required further information on the effects of treatment and prognosis and recovery. More should be done to help patients with other cancers obtain suitable information
Fossa 1996, Norway33	1991 and 1993	Convenience sample, 559, 84%, in 1993 and 211, 91.9% in 1991	ENT, gastrointestinal, lung, sarcoma, melanoma, breast, gynecological, urological, lymphoma	Questionnaire developed by Norwegian Radium Hospital (Q-NRH), NA	Wait time, feeling of being understood, allocation of sufficient time during consultation, adequate physician response to patient questions	The main determinants for patients’ satisfaction were whether the patient felt that the doctor was concerned about their problems and whether they had received adequate answers to arising questions
Blanchard 1990, USA52	1982 to 1985	Convenience sample, 366, NA	Lung, breast, colon, prostate, lymphoma, others	The Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire, (PSQ), 1754	Patients’ perception of needs addressed that day, perception of emotional support provided by the physician, older age, physician behavior, how he discusses the treatment	Patient satisfaction does primarily represent the patient’s active evaluation of cognitive aspects of the doctor-patient interaction, such as the provision of information. Patient satisfaction is more a function of patient perceptions and patient age than of specific physician behavior