Table 7.

Satisfaction outcome measures

Study	Huang et al 2018	Shaw et al 2014	Dykes et al 2017	Weber et al 2018	Huffines et al 2013
Intervention measure	Primary physician involvement	Staff teamwork training	Web-based engagement	Family rounds	Supportive care algorithm
FS ICU 24—global score	Mean (SD) Control: 84.91 (12.17) Intervention: 86.4 (11.76) Change: 1.49 p=0.16 CI: −2.14 to 5.12	Mean score Pre: 83.21 Post: 85.69 Change: 2.48 p=0.32	Mean score Pre: 84.3 (3) Post: 90 (1.9) Change: 5.7 p<0.05* CI: 2.31 to 9.09	Mean score (SD) Control: 86.0 (16.0) Intervention: 90.8 (10.7) Change: 4.8 p=0.20 CI: −0.12 to 9.72
HCAHPS			% top score 9–10 Pre: 71.8% Post: 93.3% Change 21.5 p<0.05* RR: 1.33, CI: 1.10 to 1.55
Support given				% top scores Control: 54% Intervention: 71% Change: 17% p>0.05 RR: 1.32, CI: 0.99 to 1.75	% scoring excellent Pre: 60% Post 75% Change: 15% p=0.14 RR: 1.23, CI: 0.91 to 1.65
Study	White et al 2018	Cray 1989	Dalal et al 2015	Jacobowski et al 2010
Intervention measure	Multicomponent family-support programme	Family-support programme	Patient-centred toolkit	Family rounds
Patient Perception of Patient Centeredness (PPPC)	Mean score Control: 1.8 Intervention: 1.7 Change: −0.15, p=0.006* CI: −0.26 to −0.04
Satisfaction with intervention		% Satisfied 100% agreed (76/76)	% Satisfied 72% (13/18)
Time to ask questions				% highest score Pre: 40% Post: 23% Change: −17%, p=0.02* RR: 0.57, CI: 0.37 to 0.90

FS ICU, family satisfaction intensive care unit; HCAHPS, Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems; MD, mean difference; PPPC, Patient Perception of Patient Centeredness; RR, relative risk.