Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Apr 20;16(4):e0249168. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249168

Satisfaction and associated factors towards inpatient health care services among adult patients at Pawie General Hospital, West Ethiopia

Tesgera Begize Aga 1, Yohannes Mulu Ferede 1, Enyew Getaneh Mekonen 2,*
Editor: Bishwajit Ghose3
PMCID: PMC8057596  PMID: 33878129

Abstract

Introduction

Improving the quality of services is the primary goal of the Ethiopia reform program to satisfy patients. Patient satisfaction is an attitude resulting from a person’s general orientation towards a total experience of health care. According to world health organization consumer satisfaction is playing an increasingly important role in the quality of care reforms and health-care delivery more generally.

Objective

To assess patient’s satisfaction and associated factors with health care services among admitted patients in Pawie General Hospital, Benishangul Gumuze Region, West Ethiopia, 2020

Methods

Institution based cross-sectional study was conducted among adult patients admitted to Pawie General Hospital. A systematic random sampling technique was employed to recruit 334 participants and a structured interviewer-administered questionnaire was used to collect data. Data were entered into Epi Data version 3.1, analyzed using SPSS version 23, and presented in tables and graphs. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regressions were computed to identify factors associated with patient satisfaction. P-values < 0.05 and adjusted odds ratios were used to declare the significance and strength of the association.

Result

The overall patient’s satisfaction towards inpatient health care services at Pawie General Hospital was 60.8% with 95% CI (55.4, 65.9). Factors like admission ward [AOR = 2.60; 95% CI (1.34, 5.03)] and privacy [AOR = 12.5; 95% C I (2.89, 54.1)] were significantly associated with patient’s satisfaction.

Conclusion

The satisfaction level of patients admitted to Pawie General Hospitals was low. Admission ward and perceived privacy assured were factors significantly associated with patient satisfaction among patients admitted to Pawie General Hospital. The hospital administration system is better to work together to fill the gaps identified and improve the level of patient satisfaction.

Introduction

Patient satisfaction is an essential component of client-centered care and important quality of care indicator. It affects the accreditation of health institutions they need to prove whether they meet a general standard of quality care or not [1, 2]. Patient satisfaction during hospitalization represents a balance between the patient’s perception and expectation of their health care services [3]. According to world health organization (WHO) consumer satisfaction is playing an increasingly important role in the quality of care reforms and health-care delivery more generally. Yet, studies were done by WHO showed that 46% of all the patients that visit different health care facilities, like Hospitals, are dissatisfied with the service they received [4]. In general, hospitals and healthcare systems that invest in citizens’ evaluation and patients’ assessment programs, are expected to acquire valuable information to perform important transformational changes reforms in their healthcare services [5]. Dissatisfaction increases anxiety and irritability in patients has resulted in delayed recovery time and more beds of the hospital will be occupied by increasing the length of hospitalization and costs of treatment [6].

In developed countries, patients’ satisfaction surveys have improved the quality of health care delivery and have become a mandatory issue in almost all their hospitals [7, 8]. Studies have indicated that services marketing has a greater effect on patient behavior than the costs they have to endure in hospitals. As a result, services marketing can describe a positive image of the Hospital, which in turn encourages patients to remain more loyal and refer the facility to others [9]. A descriptive study conducted in Uganda showed that the majority of the patients prefer to attend private facilities than public facilities due to poor satisfaction with health care services [10].

Patients who are not satisfied with a service may have worse outcomes because, they miss appointments, leave against the advice, or fail to follow on treatment plans [11]. The satisfaction level of the patients is inadequate in some studies done in Ethiopia, so this demands to take the further assessment and take action on the identified problems to improve the services delivered to the patients [12].

The solutions tried for patient satisfaction in the health care system have given the attention for acceptability and preference of patients in the hospital, by making the environment comfortable [3]. Federal Ministry of Health (FMOH) has developed training materials on Compassionate Respectful and Caring (CRC) and provided for health care professionals, strengthening the management capacity of health facilities to improve the quality of health services to satisfy the community’s health need [13]. However, there is no study conducted to assess the admitted patient’s satisfaction on health care services in Pawie General Hospital. Therefore, this study aimed to assess patient satisfaction and associated factors with health care services among admitted patients in Pawie General Hospital.

Methods and materials

Study design and period

Institutional based cross-sectional study was conducted from March 4 to April 14, 2020.

Study setting

The study was conducted at Pawie General Hospital in Metekele Zone, Pawie Woreda of Benishangul Gumuze Regional State. The hospital has five wards (Medical, Surgical, Pediatrics, Obstetrics, and Gynecology wards) that serve the population of the Zone and nearby Amhara region. The capital city of Metekele Zone is Gelgele Beles. It has a latitude and longitude of 10° 25’ 36" N / 35° 43’ 11" E. Pawie district is found 575km far from Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia and 401 km from Asossa, the capital city of Benishangul Gumuze Regional State. Based on the 2007 Census conducted by Ethiopia, this Zone has a total population of 276,367, of whom 139,119 are men and 137,248 women. 37,615 or 13.61% of the population are urban inhabitants. Metekele Zone has one General hospital, two primary Hospitals and 19 public health centers, and seven private clinics. According to the 2019 Pawie General Hospital human resource administration report, the hospital is expected to serve more than 468,353 peoples of the Metekele Zone and part of Chagini and Jawie Woreda of Awie Zone in Amhara region. The hospital gives different inpatient and outpatient services, including TB, HIV care service which was started in 2003, operation services.

Study participants

All admitted adult patients who have >24 hours of admission at Pawie General Hospital during the study period were included in the study. Those admitted patients who are seriously ill or unconscious were excluded.

Sample size determination and sampling procedure

The sample size was calculated using Epi info version 7 stat cal by taking the estimated proportion of inpatient satisfaction 79.7% [14], a confidence level of 95%, and margin of error 5% for satisfaction. While for factors associated with patient satisfaction assuming comparative cross-sectional; unexposed: exposed (1:1). The final sample size was 334 after adding a 10% non-response rate. A systematic random sampling technique was employed to select study participants in the study area by using their inpatient registration. The total sample size was distributed to the wards (Medical, Surgical, and Gynecology/Obstetrics ward) in the hospital using proportional allocation based on the average number of participants in previous past months. The first patient to be included in the study was selected by the lottery method, (K = N/n, where; K = the interval, N = total population, and n = sample size) and then, every 2 participants were interviewed.

Data collection instruments and procedures

Data were collected using the structured interviewer-administered questionnaire adapted from different literature after discharge from wards [3, 14, 15]. Fifty-seven questionnaires which had three parts were used: part I- socio-demographic characteristics of the patients (9 items), part II-Hospitalization and personal related condition (11 items), and part III- patient satisfaction (36 items) of the respondents and their level of satisfaction with the hospital services. Each tool used to measure the satisfaction rate involved 5-point Likert scale response (1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 3 = neutral, 4 satisfied, 5 = very satisfied). Data were collected with the help of three BSc nurses and two MSc Nurse Supervisors.

Data processing and analysis

The collected data were checked for completeness and consistency and then coded and entered into Epi Data version 3.1 and exported to SPSS version 23 for analysis. Descriptive statistics like frequency, percentage, graphs, and tables were used for data presentation. By summing up the response of 36 satisfaction questions those who scored points more than or equal to the mean score were categorized as satisfied and those patients who scored less than the mean score were categorized as dissatisfied. The bivariable logistic regression model was used to test if there is an association between a dependent variable and each independent variable. Factors statistically significant at a p-value of 0.2 and less at bivariate logistic regression were taken to multivariable logistic regression. Variables having a p-value < 0.05 in the multivariable logistic regression were considered as factors affecting outcome variables. Finally, the adjusted odds ratio was used to determine the strength of the association between a dependent variable and independent variables.

Data quality control

The data collection instruments were reviewed by four experts (two clinical nurses and two nurse academics). The tools were also tested with a pretest by taking 5% of the sample size before the actual data collection time at Asossa General Hospital with the same level but different from the study hospital to ensure the comprehensibility, and understandability of the tools. Some redundancy and vague sentences were corrected. The one-day training was given for data collectors before data collection. Regular supervision, spot-checking, and reviewing the completed questionnaire was carried out daily by the principal investigator and supervisors. The reliability of the tools was checked (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.81).

Ethical consideration

Before conducting the study, ethical clearance was obtained from the school of Nursing on behalf of the Institutional Review Board of the University of Gondar. Upon this clearance, additional written permission to conduct the study on patients was obtained from the Chief Executive Officer of the Hospital. Written informed consent was obtained from each participant and they are also informed that they have the right to withdraw from the study at any point in time. Even though it is patients’ interview, the confidentiality of information and privacy of the patients was maintained by avoiding recording of the patient’s name on the questionnaire and keeping the data anonymous, and also the recorded information was not used other than the study purpose. The issue of privacy and confidentiality was strictly maintained.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents

A total of 334 patients were involved in this study with a response rate of 100%. The mean age of the respondents was 30.6 ±10.6 years (standard deviation) and more than one third (36.2%) of them were found in the age range of 18–25 years. More than two-thirds (69.2%) of the respondents were females and nearly three-fourth (73.4%) of them were orthodox Christian in religion. One hundred and fifteen (34.4%) of the respondents had no formal education and more than half (54.2%) of them lived in an urban area. The majority of the respondents (83.2%) were married and more than half (51.8%) of them were farmers. Ninety-nine (29.6%) of the study participants earned a monthly income of 500–1500 Ethiopian Birr (Table 1).

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents at Pawie General Hospital Benishangul Gumuze Region, West Ethiopia, 2020 (n = 334).

Variables Category Frequency Percent (100%)
Sex Male 103 30.8
Female 231 69.2
Age 18–25 years 121 36.2
26–33 years 115 34.4
34–41 years 55 16.5
> = 42 years 43 12.9
Marital status Single 44 13.2
Married 278 83.2
Divorced 8 2.4
Widowed 4 1.2
Educational status No formal education 115 34.4
Primary (1–8) 113 33.8
Secondary (9–12) 43 12.9
Diploma & above 63 18.9
Occupation Govt. employee 49 14.6
Marchant 29 8.7
Farmer 173 51.8
Non employer 7 2.1
Student 48 14.4
Housewife 28 8.4
Religion Orthodox 245 73.4
Muslim 59 17.6
Protestant 29 8.7
Catholic 1 0.3
Residence Urban 181 54.2
Rural 153 45.8
Monthly income 500–1500 ETB 99 29.6
1501–2500 ETB 90 26.9
2501–3500 ETB 71 21.3
>3500 ETB 74 22.2

ETB = Ethiopian Birr

Patient-related factors

The majority (90.7%) of the respondents were admitted to the hospital through emergency and nearly two-thirds (63.2%) of them stayed less than 3 days. Two hundred and five (61.4%) of the respondents were admitted to the hospital for the first time and more than three fourth (79.3%) of them were admitted for an acute case. One hundred fifty-nine (47.6%) of the respondents were admitted in the evening time and only twenty-seven (8.1%) of them had comorbid with other diseases. More than half (56.9%) of the patients had got the services with payment and only thirty-nine (11.7%) were getting the services with privacy assured (Table 2).

Table 2. Patient-related factors of inpatient services at Pawie General Hospital Benishangul Gumuze Region, West Ethiopia, 2020 (n = 334).

Variables Category Frequency Percent (100%)
Experience of admission New visit 205 61.4
Repeat visit 129 38.6
Admission mode Emergency 303 90.7
Planned 31 9.3
Comorbidity Yes 27 8.1
No 307 91.9
Duration of Hospital stay 1–3 days 211 63.2
4–7 days 117 35.0
>8 days 6 1.8
Payment for services With payment 190 56.9
Free 144 43.1
Time of Hospitalization Morning 143 42.8
Evening 159 47.6
Night 32 9.6
Privacy assured during the examination Yes 39 11.7
No 295 88.3
Waiting time for admission <1 day 319 95.5
1–3 days 9 2.7
>3 days 6 1.8

Hospital related factors

More than half (56%) of the respondents were not satisfied with the cleanliness of the toilet. The majority (98.2%), (97.9%), and (97.3%) of the respondents were satisfied with the quietness of the room for rest, access to requested laboratory tests, and room light and ventilation respectively. Three hundred and thirty (98.8%) of the respondents were satisfied with the coherence of the service units in the hospital. Majority (85.3%) of the study participants were satisfied with the condition of the food. More than three-fourths (76.6%) of the respondents were satisfied with the availability of drinking water. Only 3.6% the study participants were dissatisfied with accommodation of the room. More than three-fourths (76.6%) of the respondents were satisfied with the clean and comfortableness of the room (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Satisfaction with hospital-related factors among patients admitted to Pawie General Hospital Benishangul Gumuze Region, West Ethiopia, 2020 (n = 334).

Fig 1

Overall patient satisfaction

The overall patient’s satisfaction towards inpatient health care services at Pawie General Hospital was 60.8% with 95% CI (55.4, 65.9) (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Overall satisfaction of patients admitted to Pawie General Hospital Benishangul Gumuze Region, West Ethiopia, 2020 (n = 334).

Fig 2

Factors associated with patient’s satisfaction

Variables like sex, occupation, monthly income, admission ward, service fee, and privacy were significantly associated with the outcome variable in the bivariable analysis. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, factors significantly associated with patient satisfaction were the admission ward and privacy. The odds of satisfaction for patients who were admitted to the surgical ward was 2.6 times higher than those patients admitted to other wards [AOR = 2.60; 95% CI (1.34, 5.03)]. Participants who report their feeling on ways privacy was assured were 12.5 times more likely to be satisfied than participants in whom measures were not taken to assure privacy [AOR = 12.5; 95% CI (2.89, 54.1)] (Table 3).

Table 3. Bivariable and multi-variable analysis of factors associated with satisfaction among patients admitted to Pawie General Hospital, West Ethiopia, 2020.

Variables Satisfaction Status OR with 95% C I
Satisfied Dissatisfied Crude Adjusted P-value
Sex Male 49 53 1 1
Female 154 78 0.47 (0.29, 0.75) 0.86 (0.48, 1.54) 0.622
Occupation Government employee 26 24 1 1
Merchant 16 13 0.88 (0.06, 0.99) 0.28 (0.08, 1.04) 0.057
Farmer 104 68 0.71 (0.06, 0.94) 0.29 (0.07, 1.20) 0.088
Jobless 4 3 0.81 (0.09, 0.98) 0.49 (0.15, 1.61) 0.242
Students 29 19 0.71 (0.04, 1.39) 0.30 (0.42, 2.12) 0.226
Others 24 4 0.18 (0.08, 0.85) 0.40 (0.11, 1.48) 0.170
Monthly income
500–1500 ETB 67 32 1 1
1501–2500 ETB 55 35 1.33 (1.12, 3.11) 1.68 (0.79, 3.59) 0.182
2501–3500 ETB 45 26 1.21 (0.89, 3.09) 1.14 (0.54, 2.36) 0.732
>3500 ETB 36 38 2.21 (0.94, 4.55) 1.57 (0.75, 3.28) 0.236
Admission ward Gynecology/Obstetrics 76 17 1
Surgical Ward 61 67 4.91 (2.67, 7.07) 2.60 (1.34, 5.03) * 0.004
Medical ward 66 47 0.65 (0.39, 1.08) 0.57 (0.34, 1.96) 0.079
Service fee
With payment 96 95 1 1
Free 107 36 0.34 (0.21, 0.54) 0.63 (0.33, 1.20) 0.164
Privacy Assured 36 2 13.9 (3.29, 58.8) 12.5 (2.89, 54.1) * 0.001
Not assured 167 129 1 1

* Statistically significant at p-value <0.05

Discussion

In this study, the overall patients’ satisfaction was 60.8% with 95% CI (55.4, 65.9). This finding was relatively consistent with a study conducted in Iran (58%) and Jimma University Specialized Hospital, Ethiopia (61.9) [16, 17]. However, the finding of this study was lower than studies conducted in Australia (69.3) Nigeria (96.1%) and China (80%) [3, 15, 18]. The possible justification for this difference might be the difference in the methodology used. The study conducted in China used a mixed-methods approach. But the current study used a quantitative approach only. Detail information can have obtained through a qualitative approach. The study conducted in Nigeria used an observational design. The observational study enables the researcher to collect the right information that patients may report in the wrong ways. It was also lower than studies conducted in Black Lion (90.1%) and Felege Hiwot Referral Hospital, Ethiopia (74.9%) [19, 20]. This might be due to the difference in study participants and the service provided to patients. The Felege Hiwot Referral Hospital study was conducted to assess women’s satisfaction with childbirth care. Exempted from any payment for childbirth care services, and increased government concern for maternal health service may increase the satisfaction status. The Black Lion Referral Hospital study was conducted to assess adult patients’ satisfaction with nursing care provided. Whereas the current study was conducted to assess adult patients’ satisfaction with all inpatient services provided. Assessing the patients’ satisfaction with a specific service provided (nursing care) may increase the satisfaction status of patients. On the other hand, it was higher than studies conducted in the Gambia (36.8%) and Arba Minch hospital, Gamo Gofa, Ethiopia (40.9%) [17, 21]. The plausible justification for this difference might be differences in the study setting, characteristics of study participants, and tools used. The Gambia study was conducted in a referral and teaching hospital while the current study was conducted in a general hospital. The expectation of patients admitted to a referral hospital might be high and their satisfaction status becomes low as compared with patients admitted to a general hospital.

In this study, patients admitted to the surgical ward were 2.6 times more likely to be satisfied than patients admitted to other wards. This finding was supported by studies conducted in Jimma University Specialized Hospital and Public Hospitals of Amhara Region [3, 22]. This might be due to the condition and expectation of patients admitted to the medical ward and Gynecology/ Obstetrics ward. Patients admitted to the medical ward are mostly diagnosed with more severe conditions, poorer prognosis, and being greatly exposed to stressful and anxious situations. As a result, their perception level might be influenced by the hallo effect (a cognitive bias) of these factors which made their satisfaction level low. Similarly, participants who report their feeling on ways privacy was assured were 12.5 times more likely to be satisfied than participants in whom measures were not taken to assure privacy. This finding was in line with studies conducted in Amhara Region Public Hospitals and Asella Hospital of Oromia Region [23, 24]. This might be due to a lack of privacy that makes communication difficult between patients and healthcare professionals, mainly when they discuss sensitive conditions. Misdiagnosis and ineffective treatments for patients may result if the patients’ privacy is not assured. Finally, the patient’s trust may have eroded which makes it difficult to build a good patient- healthcare professional relationship. As a result, the patient’s satisfaction level may decrease if privacy is not assured during care provision.

Strength of the study

The response rate was high. Since the interview was made after discharge at the exit patients are free to respond.

Limitation of the study

The cause/effect and the temporal relationship could not be established due to the cross-sectional nature of the study.

There might be an introduction of confirmation bias since data were collected by health professionals.

Conclusion

The satisfaction of patients admitted to Pawie General Hospital was low. Admission ward and privacy were factors associated with patient satisfaction among patients admitted to Pawie General Hospital. The hospital administration system is better to work together to fill the gaps identified and improve the level of patient satisfaction.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(XLS)

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the University of Gondar, Pawie General Hospital director, data collectors, and study participants.

List of abbreviations

AOR

Adjusted Odds Ratio

CRC

Compassionate Respectful and Caring

FMOH

Federal Ministry of Health

SPSS

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Hemadeh R, Hammoud R. Patient satisfaction with primary healthcare services in Lebanon. 2019; 34(1): e423–e35. 10.1002/hpm.2659 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Naseer M, Zahidie A, Shaikh BT. Determinants of patient satisfaction with the health care system in Pakistan: a critical review. Pakistan Journal of Public Health. 2012; 2(2):52. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Woldeyohanes TR, Woldehaimanot TE, Kerie MW, Mengistie MA, Yesuf EA. Perceived patient satisfaction with in-patient services at Jimma University Specialized Hospital, Southwest Ethiopia. BMC research notes. 2015; 8(1):285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Piron L, Turolla A, Tonin P, Piccione F, Lain L, Dam M. Satisfaction with care in post-stroke patients undergoing a tele-rehabilitation program at home. Journal of telemedicine and telecare. 2008; 14(5):257–60. 10.1258/jtt.2008.080304 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Xesfingi S, Karamanis D, Vozikis A. Patient satisfaction at tertiary level healthcare services in Greece: inpatient vs outpatient healthcare services assessment. Int J Health Econ Policy. 2017; 2(3):125–33. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Moghaddasian S, Abdollah-Zadeh F, Rahmani A, Salehain M, Firouzian A. Nurse-patient communication and its relation to satisfaction with nursing services in the viewpoint of cancer patients hospitalized in shahid Ghazi hospital, Tabriz. Journal of North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences. 2013; 5(2):459–66. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Adekanye A, Adefemi S, Okuku A, Onawola K, Adeleke I, James J. Patients’ satisfaction with the healthcare services at a north-central Nigerian tertiary hospital. Niger J Med. 2013; 22(3):218–24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Al-Abri R, Al-Balushi A. Patient satisfaction survey as a tool towards quality improvement. Oman medical journal. 2014; 29(1):3. 10.5001/omj.2014.02 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kokou P, Van Tonder E, Roberts-Lombard M. Patient Satisfaction Measurement for In-Hospital Services Delivered by Nurses: Guidelines for Improving Practice in Africa. American Journal of Health Sciences (AJHS). 2015; 6(1):23–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ochan AW, Aaron K, Aliyu S, Mohiuddin M, Bamaiyi P. Patients’ satisfaction with Healthcare Services Received in Health Facilities in Bushenyi District of Uganda. International Journal of Science and Healthcare Research. 2018; 3(1):76–87. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Desta H, Berhe T, Hintsa S. Assessment of patients’ satisfaction and associated factors among outpatients received mental health services at public hospitals of Mekelle Town, northern Ethiopia. 2018; 12:38. 10.1186/s13033-018-0217-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kdouh O, Jaber T, Ammar L, Berehe TT, Bekele GE, Yimer YS, et al. Assessment of client’s satisfaction with outpatient services at Yekatit 12 Hospital Medical College, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The International Journal of health planning and management. 2018; 11(1):507. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Assefa F, Mosse A. Assessment of clients’ satisfaction with health service deliveries at Jimma University specialized hospital. Ethiopian Journal of health sciences. 2011; 21(2):101–10. 10.4314/ejhs.v21i2.69050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Marama T, Bayu H, Merga M, Binu W. Patient Satisfaction and Associated Factors among Clients Admitted to Obstetrics and Gynecology Wards of Public Hospitals in Mekelle Town, Ethiopia: An Institution-Based Cross-Sectional Study. Obstetrics and gynecology international. 2018; 2018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lawal BJ, Agbla SC, Bola-Lawal QN, Afolabi MO, Ihaji E. Patients’ Satisfaction with Care from Nigerian Federal Capital Territory’s Public Secondary Hospitals: A Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of the patient experience. 2018; 5(4):250–7. 10.1177/2374373517752696 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Chandra S, Ward PR, Mohammadnezhad M. Factors Associated with patient satisfaction in the outpatient department of Suva Sub-Divisional Health center, Fiji, 2018: A mixed-method study. Frontiers in public health. 2019; 7:183. 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00183 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sanyang Y, Bojang I, Sarr F. Patients’ Satisfaction with Healthcare Delivery in the Gambia: A Case Study of Edward Francis Small Teaching Hospital. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Shan L, Li Y, Ding D, Wu Q, Liu C, Jiao M, et al. Patient satisfaction with hospital inpatient care: effects of trust, medical insurance, and perceived quality of care. PloS one. 2016; 11(10): e0164366. 10.1371/journal.pone.0164366 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Molla M, Berhe A, Shumye A, Adama Y. Assessment of adult patient’s satisfaction and associated factors with nursing care in black lion hospital, Ethiopia; institutional-based cross-sectional study, 2012. International Journal of Nursing and Midwifery. 2014; 6(4):49–57. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mekonnen ME, Yalew WA, Anteneh ZA. Women’s satisfaction with childbirth care in Felege Hiwot Referral Hospital, Bahir Dar city, Northwest Ethiopia, 2014: a cross-sectional study. BMC research notes. 2015; 8(1):528. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Mensa M, Taye A, Katene S, Abera F, Ochare O. Determinants of patient satisfaction towards inpatient nursing services and its associated factors in, Gamo Gofa zone, SNNPR, Ethiopia, April 2017. MOJ Clin Med Case Rep. 2017; 7(3):00205. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kasa AS, Gedamu H. Predictors of adult patient satisfaction with nursing care in public hospitals of Amhara region, Northwest Ethiopia. BMC health services research. 2019; 19(1):52. 10.1186/s12913-019-3898-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Tayelgn A, Zegeye DT, Kebede Y. Mothers’ satisfaction with referral hospital delivery service in Amhara Region, Ethiopia. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2011; 11(1):78. 10.1186/1471-2393-11-78 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Amdemichael R, Tafa M, Fekadu H. Maternal satisfaction with the delivery services in Assela Hospital, Arsi zone, Oromia region. Gynecol Obstet (Sunnyvale). 2014; 4(257):2161. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Bishwajit Ghose

4 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-24310

Satisfaction and associated factors towards inpatient health care services among adult patients at Pawie General Hospital, Benishangul Gumuze Regional State, West Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript within three weeks. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bishwajit Ghose, PhD.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please address the following:

- Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

- Please ensure you have thoroughly discussed any potential limitations of this study within the Discussion section, including the potential introduction of bias during data collection.

3. Please modify the title to ensure that it is meeting PLOS’ guidelines (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-title). In particular, the title should be "specific, descriptive, concise, and comprehensible to readers outside the field" and in this case we suggest it could be shortened, for example: "Satisfaction and associated factors towards inpatient health care services among adult patients at Pawie General Hospital, West Ethiopia".

4.  Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

6. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ogi/2018/2475059/

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors studied the patients's satisfaction of the hospital.

The data seems to be a good reference for other hospital operation.

Although the important results are described in the Tables, it is difficult to understand the results.

I suggest that the author used more comprehensive chart and figures.

Reviewer #2: Paper suggests and supports the unusual importance of patients’ satisfaction studies. Patients’ satisfaction is independent of the type of medical facility, private or public. According to presented data, the satisfaction level to some extent is the measure of therapy/treatment efficacy. Human expectations, regrading medical healthcare are universal and independent of geographical location.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 20;16(4):e0249168. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249168.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


6 Jan 2021

We tried to incorporate and address all the comments and suggestions forwarded by an academic editor and reviewers.

Attachment

Submitted filename: 12-Revised Manuscript with Track Changes_for PLoS.docx

Decision Letter 1

Bishwajit Ghose

15 Mar 2021

Satisfaction and associated factors towards inpatient health care services among adult patients at Pawie General Hospital, West Ethiopia

PONE-D-20-24310R1

Dear Authors,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Bishwajit Ghose, PhD.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Authors well upgraded the manuscript figures, therefore, I suggest "accept" for publication as it is.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Acceptance letter

Bishwajit Ghose

30 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-24310R1

Satisfaction and associated factors towards inpatient health care services among adult patients at Pawie General Hospital, West Ethiopia

Dear Dr. Mekonen:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Bishwajit Ghose

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (XLS)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 12-Revised Manuscript with Track Changes_for PLoS.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES