Patient SatisfactionNCT01466140
Effects of Writing Down the Request for Help on Patient Satisfaction in General Practices
A study testing Writing down request for help in people with Patient Satisfaction and Doctor Satisfaction, run by Nanne Kleefstra at 1 site in Netherlands.
Trial summary
The primary objective of this study is to determine whether exploring the request for help more thoroughly improves patient satisfaction in general practice (primary care). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Patient Satisfaction, Doctor Satisfaction, Duration of Consultation
- What is being tested?
- Writing down request for help
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 209 participants
- Where
- 1 siteNetherlands
- Study dates
- Jan 2011to May 2011
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- All patients with a new request for help.
Who cannot join
- Dementia
- Mental disability
- No or little knowledge of the Dutch language
- Illiteracy
- Limited vision
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Effects of Writing Down the Request for Help With Regard to Patient Satisfaction in General Practices
The primary objective of this study is to determine whether exploring the request for help more thoroughly improves patient satisfaction in general practice (primary care).
Read the detailed description
Patient satisfaction has been an important topic of interest in primary health care during the last decade(s). Many factors during the consultation influence patient satisfaction. One of the aspects in a consultation is the request for help; especially in primary care the request for help has been recognised as an important aspect influencing patient satisfaction. The investigators hypothesized that exploring the request for help more thoroughly would improve patient satisfaction in general practice.
- Being tested
- Writing down request for help
- Keywords
- Patient Satisfaction, Request for help, General practice
- Medical subject headings
- Patient Satisfaction
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Writing down request for helpOther
Patients in the intervention group could write down their request for help on a request card (with a maximum of 2 questions).
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Control group | No intervention | Patients in the control group were asked to participate in a patient satisfaction study. They were asked to fill in a questionnaire with respect to patient satisfaction. |
| Use of request card | Experimental | Patients in the intervention group were told that the practice was participating in a patient satisfaction study, and they were given an envelope with information about the 'doorknob phenomenon' and a request card. The envelope for the control group only consisted of information about a patient satisfaction study, without any information on the 'doorknob phenomenon', and without a request card. Both groups received the same letter with patient information about the study. Receives: Other: Writing down request for help |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Patient satisfaction measured with the Consultation Satisfaction Questionnaire
The primary endpoint is the 'Professional Care' (PC) scale of the 'Consultation Satisfaction Questionnaire' (CSQ). In a previous study the score on the PC were 88.2 en 80.9 in the intervention and control groups, respectively. The standard deviations were 11.8 en 16.1. For our sample size calculation we used an expected standard deviation of 15. The sample size required to detect a difference of 7 on the PC scale between the intervention and control group, with a power of 90%, and alpha of 5% (two-tailed), and a standard deviation of 15, was 196 patients. We rounded this number off to 200.
Measured: 15-30 minutes (after the consultation patients filled in the questionnaire)
Secondary outcomes (3)
Patient satisfaction measured with the Visual Analog Scale
On a scale of 0-10 patients could fill in the Visual Analog Scale with regard to the patient satisfaction during the consultation
Measured: 15-30 minutes (patients filled in the Visual Analog Scale after the consultation)
Doctor satisfaction measured with the Visual Analog Scale
On a scale from 0-10 general practitioners could fill in the Visual Analog Scale with regard to their own satisfaction about the consultation
Measured: 15-30 minutes (general pracitioners filled in the Visual Analog Scale after the consultation)
Duration of the consultation
Duration of the consultation was compared between both groups
Measured: 15-30 minutes (after the consultation the doctor measured the time with a stopwatch)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted7 Nov 2011 (estimated)
- Study startJan 2011
- Primary completionMar 2011
- Study completionMay 2011
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Patient SatisfactionStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 209 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Nanne Kleefstra
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Nanne Kleefstra, Medical Research Foundation, The Netherlands
- Investigators
- Henk Bilo, Study chair, Medical Research Centre
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01466140
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- EffectsPS1
- Status last verified
- Nov 2011
- First submitted
- 21 Oct 2011
- Last updated
- 7 Nov 2011
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 7 Nov 2011. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effects of Writing Down the Request for Help With Regard to Patient Satisfaction in General Practices
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01466140
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- EffectsPS1
- Keywords
- Patient Satisfaction, Request for help, General practice
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 209 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Nanne KleefstraUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Jan 2011
- Primary completion
- Mar 2011 (actual)
- Study completion
- May 2011 (actual)
- First posted
- 7 Nov 2011 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The primary objective of this study is to determine whether exploring the request for help more thoroughly improves patient satisfaction in general practice (primary care).
Detailed description
Patient satisfaction has been an important topic of interest in primary health care during the last decade(s). Many factors during the consultation influence patient satisfaction. One of the aspects in a consultation is the request for help; especially in primary care the request for help has been recognised as an important aspect influencing patient satisfaction. The investigators hypothesized that exploring the request for help more thoroughly would improve patient satisfaction in general practice.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Control group | No intervention | –Patients in the control group were asked to participate in a patient satisfaction study. They were asked to fill in a questionnaire with respect to patient satisfaction. |
| Use of request card | Experimental | Other: Writing down request for helpPatients in the intervention group were told that the practice was participating in a patient satisfaction study, and they were given an envelope with information about the 'doorknob phenomenon' and a request card. The envelope for the control group only consisted of information about a patient satisfaction study, without any information on the 'doorknob phenomenon', and without a request card. Both groups received the same letter with patient information about the study. |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- All patients with a new request for help.
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Dementia
- Mental disability
- No or little knowledge of the Dutch language
- Illiteracy
- Limited vision
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Writing down request for helpPatients in the intervention group could write down their request for help on a request card (with a maximum of 2 questions). | Other | Use of request card |
Primary outcome
Patient satisfaction measured with the Consultation Satisfaction Questionnaire
Time frame: 15-30 minutes (after the consultation patients filled in the questionnaire)
The primary endpoint is the 'Professional Care' (PC) scale of the 'Consultation Satisfaction Questionnaire' (CSQ). In a previous study the score on the PC were 88.2 en 80.9 in the intervention and control groups, respectively. The standard deviations were 11.8 en 16.1. For our sample size calculation we used an expected standard deviation of 15. The sample size required to detect a difference of 7 on the PC scale between the intervention and control group, with a power of 90%, and alpha of 5% (two-tailed), and a standard deviation of 15, was 196 patients. We rounded this number off to 200.
3 secondary outcomes
Patient satisfaction measured with the Visual Analog Scale
Time frame: 15-30 minutes (patients filled in the Visual Analog Scale after the consultation)
Doctor satisfaction measured with the Visual Analog Scale
Time frame: 15-30 minutes (general pracitioners filled in the Visual Analog Scale after the consultation)
Duration of the consultation
Time frame: 15-30 minutes (after the consultation the doctor measured the time with a stopwatch)
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 7 Nov 2011.
Related trials for Patient Satisfaction
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Stress Ball Use During Femoral Arterial Sheath Removal After Coronary Angiography
Femoral Arterial Sheath Removal, Stress Ball
Recruiting
Hybrid mHealth and Telerehabilitation vs Conventional Physiotherapy for Subacromial Pain Syndrome
Subacromial Pain Syndrome
RecruitingObservational study
A Study to Evaluate Patient-Reported Satisfaction, Effectiveness, and Safety of Atezolizumab in Participants Treated in Routine Clinical Practice
Lung Cancer, Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Recruiting
Effect of Mandala Coloring on Anxiety, Pain, Vital Signs, and Patient Satisfaction in Patients Undergoing Transurethral Resection of the Prostate
Mandala Coloring
Not yet recruiting
Feasibility of a Web-based Single-session Intervention Combined With Ecological Momentary Assessment and Intervention for Patients With Complex Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Awaiting Inpatient Treatment
PTSD - Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Depression
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Henk Bilo study chair
Medical Research Centre
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Writing down request for help in people with Patient Satisfaction and Doctor Satisfaction, run by Nanne Kleefstra at 1 site in Netherlands.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 7 Nov 2011. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Netherlands. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Patient satisfaction measured with the Consultation Satisfaction Questionnaire (time frame: 15-30 minutes (after the consultation patients filled in the questionnaire)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 7 Nov 2011.