0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Analyzing Factors Influencing Patient Selection of a Surgeon for Elective Surgery in Saudi Arabia: A Questionnaire-Based Survey

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: Nowadays patients are encouraged to partake in healthcare decision making and patient preferences are given increasing weight. Patient’s choice is important to reduce waiting time and to encourage competition between providers, as most patients look for high-quality care while minimizing costs, according to different studies this may not be as simple as the attributes and factors that patients value when selecting a hospital or surgeon. Overall, Saudi Arabia has minimal research on how patients select surgeons or surgical facilities. Therefore, the goal of the current study was to evaluate the criteria Saudi population patients used to select their surgeons.

          Objective: The objective is to determine the relative importance of the following aspects that patients may consider when selecting a surgeon: (a) physician-related considerations; (b) elements relating to healthcare service and access; (c) the perspectives of patients on various factors.

          Methods: This observational cross-sectional study attempts to investigate the criteria that people in Saudi Arabia considered most important while selecting their surgeons. This study was conducted between August and November 2022. The questionnaire is also given in English along with Arabic.

          Results: Six hundred nine completed the survey with a response rate of 91.6%. Concerning physician-related factors considered when choosing a surgeon attitudes of the physician were the factor most significantly contributed to physician selection rather than reputation or professional experience and physician social media: (84.7%) mentioned that paying attention to patient’s needs and opinions is important; sparing enough time for patients is important as reported by 83.9% of the participants; Personal care and hygiene is important for 83.4% of the participants; Communication skills were considered to be important as stated by 82.6% of the participants. Regarding healthcare services/access-related factors considered by patients in physician selection; it was found that patients considered hospital hygiene-cleanliness (91.3 %) as the most significant healthcare service/access-related factor in physician selection and then it comes Ease of obtaining an appointment (89.7%), reasonable scheduling and wait for time (87.7%) and cost of surgery (82.1%). Physician selection was deemed crucial to the success of the therapy by 87.7% of patients, while 88.3% of patients thought it was crucial to research the doctor before contacting her or him for the current admission.

          Conclusion: Patients consider a wide range of variables when selecting their surgeons and the location of their procedure. Depending on sociodemographic, cultural, and other aspects, the conditions surrounding patients' decisions may vary. Overall, the selection of a surgeon by surgery patients appears to be more influenced by the doctor's attitudes than by his or her reputation, professional experience, or social media presence. In order to elicit preferences across a wider range of surgical subspecialties and patient demographics, more study is necessary.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Determinants of patient choice of healthcare providers: a scoping review

          Background In several northwest European countries, a demand-driven healthcare system has been implemented that stresses the importance of patient healthcare provider choice. In this study, we are conducting a scoping review aiming to map out what is known about the determinants of patient choice of a wide range of healthcare providers. As far as we know, not many studies are currently available that attempt to draw a general picture of how patients choose a healthcare provider and of the status of research on this subject. This study is therefore a valuable contribution to the growing amount of literature about patient choice. Methods We carried out a specific type of literature review known as a scoping review. Scoping reviews try to examine the breadth of knowledge that is available about a particular topic and therefore do not make selections or apply quality constraints. Firstly, we defined our research questions and searched the literature in Embase, Medline and PubMed. Secondly, we selected the literature, and finally we analysed and summarized the information. Results Our review shows that patients’ choices are determined by a complex interplay between patient and provider characteristics. A variety of patient characteristics determines whether patients make choices, are willing and able to choose, and how they choose. Patients take account of a variety of structural, process and outcome characteristics of providers, differing in the relative importance they attach to these characteristics. Conclusions There is no such thing as the typical patient: different patients make different choices in different situations. Comparative information seems to have a relatively limited influence on the choices made by many patients and patients base their decisions on a variety of provider characteristics instead of solely on outcome characteristics. The assumptions made in health policy about patient choice may therefore be an oversimplification of reality. Several knowledge gaps were identified that need follow-up research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Patient preferences versus physicians' judgement: does it make a difference in healthcare decision making?

            Clinicians and public health experts make evidence-based decisions for individual patients, patient groups and even whole populations. In addition to the principles of internal and external validity (evidence), patient preferences must also influence decision making. Great Britain, Australia and Germany are currently discussing methods and procedures for valuing patient preferences in regulatory (authorization and pricing) and in health policy decision making. However, many questions remain on how to best balance patient and public preferences with physicians' judgement in healthcare and health policy decision making. For example, how to define evaluation criteria regarding the perceived value from a patient's perspective? How do physicians' fact-based opinions also reflect patients' preferences based on personal values? Can empirically grounded theories explain differences between patients and experts-and, if so, how? This article aims to identify and compare studies that used different preference elicitation methods and to highlight differences between patient and physician preferences. Therefore, studies comparing patient preferences and physician judgements were analysed in a review. This review shows a limited amount of literature analysing and comparing patient and physician preferences for healthcare interventions and outcomes. Moreover, it shows that methodology used to compare preferences is diverse. A total of 46 studies used the following methods-discrete-choice experiments, conjoint analyses, standard gamble, time trade-offs and paired comparisons-to compare patient preferences with doctor judgements. All studies were published between 1985 and 2011. Most studies reveal a disparity between the preferences of actual patients and those of physicians. For most conditions, physicians underestimated the impact of intervention characteristics on patients' decision making. Differentiated perceptions may reflect ineffective communication between the provider and the patient. This in turn may keep physicians from fully appreciating the impact of certain medical conditions on patient preferences. Because differences exist between physicians' judgement and patient preferences, it is important to incorporate the needs and wants of the patient into treatment decisions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              A Changing Landscape of Physician Quality Reporting: Analysis of Patients’ Online Ratings of Their Physicians Over a 5-Year Period

              Background Americans increasingly post and consult online physician rankings, yet we know little about this new phenomenon of public physician quality reporting. Physicians worry these rankings will become an outlet for disgruntled patients. Objective To describe trends in patients’ online ratings over time, across specialties, to identify what physician characteristics influence online ratings, and to examine how the value of ratings reflects physician quality. Methods We used data from RateMDs.com, which included over 386,000 national ratings from 2005 to 2010 and provided insight into the evolution of patients’ online ratings. We obtained physician demographic data from the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Area Resource File. Finally, we matched patients’ ratings with physician-level data from the Virginia Medical Board and examined the probability of being rated and resultant rating levels. Results We estimate that 1 in 6 practicing US physicians received an online review by January 2010. Obstetrician/gynecologists were twice as likely to be rated (P < .001) as other physicians. Online reviews were generally quite positive (mean 3.93 on a scale of 1 to 5). Based on the Virginia physician population, long-time graduates were more likely to be rated, while physicians who graduated in recent years received higher average ratings (P < .001). Patients gave slightly higher ratings to board-certified physicians (P = .04), those who graduated from highly rated medical schools (P = .002), and those without malpractice claims (P = .1). Conclusion Online physician rating is rapidly growing in popularity and becoming commonplace with no evidence that they are dominated by disgruntled patients. There exist statistically significant correlations between the value of ratings and physician experience, board certification, education, and malpractice claims, suggesting a positive correlation between online ratings and physician quality. However, the magnitude is small. The average number of ratings per physician is still low, and most rating variation reflects evaluations of punctuality and staff. Understanding whether they truly reflect better care and how they are used will be critically important.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cureus
                Cureus
                2168-8184
                Cureus
                Cureus (Palo Alto (CA) )
                2168-8184
                2 December 2022
                December 2022
                : 14
                : 12
                : e32124
                Affiliations
                [1 ] College of Medicine, Taif University, Taif, SAU
                [2 ] Surgery, College of Medicine, Taif University, Taif, SAU
                [3 ] Surgery, Benha Teaching Hospital, Benha, EGY
                Author notes
                Mohammed A. Alosaimi m0511a@ 123456hotmail.com
                Article
                10.7759/cureus.32124
                9806736
                36601220
                6d6b07a1-e43e-4b0e-8647-517f3938739c
                Copyright © 2022, Alosaimi et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 2 December 2022
                Categories
                Cardiac/Thoracic/Vascular Surgery
                Otolaryngology
                General Surgery

                saudi arabia,elective surgery,surgeon,selection,patient,influencing,factors

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                7
                0
                6
                0
                Smart Citations
                7
                0
                6
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content149

                Cited by4

                Most referenced authors263