Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (8)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jung, H.
Right arrow Articles by Grol, R
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jung, H.
Right arrow Articles by Grol, R
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Family Practice Vol. 17, No. 3, 236-242
© Oxford University Press 2000

Comparison of patients' preferences and evaluations regarding aspects of general practice care

HP Jung, M Wensing, A de Wilt, F Olesen and R Grol

Centre for Quality of Care Research, Universities of Nijmegen and Maastricht, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Background. Although patients' views on health care are perceived to be crucial, insight into the different constructs capturing these views remains limited.

Objective. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between patients' preferences and their evaluations of general practice care.

Methods. Patients visiting five rural practices in The Netherlands were asked to complete a questionnaire measuring either their evaluations or their preferences on 44 aspects of general practice care. After at least 3 weeks, those patients who had answered the evaluation questionnaire received the questionnaire measuring their preferences, and vice versa.

Results. A total of 449 patients answered both questionnaires (response 70%). The longer the period after the consultation, the lower was the mean percentage of all 44 aspects rated as ‘good’ in the evaluation questionnaire (P = 0.006) and the higher was the mean percentage of all 44 aspects rated as ‘very important’ in the preference questionnaire (P = 0.046). The Spearman rank order correlation between the ranking of patients' evaluations and patients' preferences was 0.34, a low although significant correlation (P = 0.024), i.e. the two rank orders do not resemble each other very much.

Conclusions. Patients clearly distinguished their preferences from their evaluations of general practice care. Aspects of general practice care, whether important or not, can be evaluated positively or negatively. Patients' preferences and patients' evaluations are, however, both influenced by the length of the time elapsed since the consultation.

Keywords. General practice care, patients' evaluations, patients' preferences.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Fam PractHome page
H. Schers, H. van den Hoogen, R. Grol, and W. van den Bosch
Continuity of care through medical records--an explorative study on GPs' management considerations
Fam. Pract., June 1, 2006; 23(3): 349 - 352.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
M. Wensing and G. Elwyn
Improving the quality of health care: Methods for incorporating patients' views in health care
BMJ, April 19, 2003; 326(7394): 877 - 879.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Qual Saf Health CareHome page
M Wensing and G Elwyn
Research on patients' views in the evaluation and improvement of quality of care
Qual. Saf. Health Care, June 1, 2002; 11(2): 153 - 157.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.