Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Among 173 patients seeking musculoskeletal specialty care, we sought patient personal factors associated with patient experiences measured using the 7-item Trust and Experience with Clinicians Scale (TRECS-7) and Jefferson Scale of Patient's Perceptions of Physician Empathy (JSPPPE). Accounting for potential confounders, including demographics, visit-related information, mental health, and social health, we found no factors associated with TRECS-7, and only self-reported Hispanic/Latino ethnicity was associated with lower JSPPPE (regression coefficient = −2.8, 95% confidence interval = −4.9 to −0.63). In posthoc cluster analysis, statistical groupings of patients with generally worse mean social health and mental health were associated with worse patient experience (TRECS-7 and JSPPPE). The combination of an experience measure with lower ceiling effects and wider distribution of scores and cluster analysis may improve the ability to measure associations with patient personal factors.

Keywords

patient experience clinician-patient relationship patient/relationship centered socioeconomic relationships in healthcare social determinants of health patient-reported experience measures trust

Introduction

Background

Clinicians use patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) to quantify the patient's perception of the clinician's empathy and communication effectiveness, their trust in the clinician, their willingness to recommend the physician to family or friends, and other aspects of experiences with care.¹ As one might expect, these various PREMs are highly correlated with one another.^2-7 But, to date, the measured relationships between experience measures and patient personal factors are modest and inconsistent.^3,8,9 This may be due to another characteristic of PREMs: they all have notable ceiling effects (a large proportion of people with the highest possible score).^10,11 Ceiling effects lead to loss of information at the top end of the scale. It's possible that the loss of information related to these ceiling effects may be limiting the ability to represent variations in experience adequately and to measure relationships between levels of patient experience and specific clinician or patient factors. Similar to other large businesses and organizations, clinicians and care units can use PREMs to measure the effects of efforts to improve patient experience.¹² The ability to improve patient experience depends on the ability to measure their associations with modifiable factors.^10,11

Rationale

With these motivations, a new PREM with less ceiling effect and a greater distribution of scores was developed. Since the most useful items addressed trust in the clinician, the instrument was labeled the Trust and Experience with Clinicians Scale (TRECS).¹³ In development, we noted that TRECS correlates well with a legacy experience measure, the Jefferson Scale of Patient's Perceptions of Physician Empathy (JSPPPE), while comparatively decreasing the ceiling effect. Having developed a PREM with greater variance and less ceiling effect, the next step is to determine whether we are able to detect associations with specific patient, care unit, and clinician factors and patient experience. This study addresses patient factors. Knowledge of patients’ personal factors associated with variation in patient experience has the potential to inform efforts to improve the experience of care.

Questions

Among a cohort of patients seeking musculoskeletal specialty care, we asked: (1) What patient factors are associated with patient experience measured using TRECS? (2) What patient factors are associated with patient experience measured using the legacy tool JSPPPE?

Methods

Study Design and Setting

In a cross-sectional study approved by the institutional review board (STUDY00004831), all new and returning adult (age 18-89 years) patients receiving musculoskeletal specialty care at one of 4 outpatient offices in an urban area were invited to participate. People with cognitive impairment or people whose primary language was not English were excluded. A research assistant not involved in patient care invited people to complete a survey on a Health Insurance and Portability Accounting Act compliant tablet (Research Electronic Data Capture [REDCap], Vanderbilt, TN) or personal electronic device. Verbal consent to participate and completion of the survey was considered informed consent.

Participants

We recruited 177 patients to participate. Four patients started the questionnaire but did not get past the initial demographics page. This is relatively common when people use their own device, which we relied on due to limited tablets at some research sites. One hundred seventy-three of 177 patients (98%) completed the entire questionnaire and were analyzed. The mean age of the participants was 54 ± 16 years. Fifty-one percent of participants identified as women (89 of 173) and 67% (116 of 173) identified as white (Table 1). More than half the participants sought care for an upper extremity concern (112 patients, 65%).

Table 1.

Demographics of Cohort.

Variables	Value^a
N	173
Age	54 ± 16
Women	89 (51%)
Smoking status
Current	9 (5.2%)
Former	45 (26%)
Never	119 (69%)
Alcohol use (per week)
None	75 (43%)
1-3	60 (35%)
3-6	23 (13%)
> 6	15 (9%)
Race/Ethnicity
White	116 (67%)
Hispanic/Latin	32 (18%)
Black/African-American	11 (6.4%)
Asian	13 (7.5%)
Other	1 (0.58%)
Marital status
Married/partner	114 (66%)
Single	33 (19%)
Divorced	20 (12%)
Widowed	6 (3.5%)
Level of education
High school or less	40 (23%)
2-year college	36 (21%)
4-year college	55 (32%)
Postcollege graduate degree	42 (24%)
Employment status
Employed	96 (55%)
Unemployed	19 (11%)
Retired	49 (28%)
Other	9 (5%)
Income
< $24,000	55 (32%)
$24 000-$46 000	20 (12%)
$46 000-$75 000	15 (8.7%)
$75 000-$121 000	13 (7.5%)
>$121 000	31 (18%)
Prefer not to say	39 (23%)
Insurance type
Private	105 (61%)
Medicare	45 (26%)
County safety net	14 (8.1%)
Uninsured	4 (2.3%)
Medicaid	5 (3.0%)
Clinic location
Office 1	15 (8.7%)
Office 2	60 (35%)
Office 3	42 (24%)
Other	56 (32%)
New patient	72 (42%)
Trauma	67 (39%)
Location of injury
Upper extremity	112 (65%)
Lower extremity	61 (35%)
Treatment
None	60 (34%)
Surgery performed	32 (18%)
Surgery scheduled	7 (4.0%)
Nonoperative treatment	74 (43%)
Provider type
Surgeon	153 (88%)
Physician assistant	5 (2.9%)
Resident	1 (0.58%)
Other	14 (8.1%)
Social health	29 (23-34)
Feelings of distress	7 (4-9)
Unhelpful thoughts	6 (5-8)
Trust and Experience With Clinician Scale (TRECS)	23 (20-27)
Jefferson Scale of Patient Perception of Physician Empathy (JSPPPE)	30 (28-34)

Value is displayed as median with interquartile range for continuous variables with nonnormal distribution, and as a number with percentage for categorical variables.

Measured Explanatory Variables

We measured patient demographics, visit-related information, mental health (feelings of distress and unhelpful thoughts), and social health. Feelings of distress were measured using 3 items answered on a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree), where higher scores indicate more severe feelings of distress.¹⁴ Unhelpful thoughts regarding symptoms were measured using 3 items using the same 5-point Likert scale, where higher scores indicate more severe unhelpful thinking.¹⁴ Social health was measured using a 9-item patient-reported measure, including statements about their financial security (5 items) and social support status (4 items) rated on a 5-point Likert scale.¹⁵ Higher scores indicate more favorable social circumstances. Measure of pain intensity was intentionally not measured because they are so strongly associated with measures of mental and social health that the collinearity distorts multivariable statistical models.

Primary Outcome Measures

We measured patient experience using the 7-item TRECS as the primary outcome and the JSPPPE as the secondary outcome. TRECS-7 is a quantitative measure of patient trust and experience in the clinician, in which statements are rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Examples of statements include “My provider seems concerned about me or my family,” or “I trust my provider would tell me if a mistake was made about my treatment.” Higher scores indicate a greater level of trust in the clinician. The JSPPPE is a measure of patient perception of clinician empathy. The patient rates the clinician on 5 statements using a 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Examples of statements include: “Understands my feelings and concerns” or “Can view things from my perspective (see things as I see them).”¹⁶

Statistical Analysis

We performed descriptive statistics for all participants (Table 1). Categorical variables were reported as percentages with frequency, and continuous variables were reported as mean with standard deviation (SD) or median with interquartile range (IQR), depending on data distribution for normally or nonnormally distributed data, respectively. We first used bivariate analyses to identify variables associated with TRECS and JSPPPE. We used Spearman rank correlation to assess continuous explanatory variables, Mann-Whitney U tests for dichotomous explanatory variables, and Kruskal-Wallis tests for categorical explanatory variables. We then constructed 3 different models with (1) all explanatory variables, (2) variables with P < .20 in bivariate, and (3) variables with P < .10 in bivariate, and assessed the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) value to determine the best fitting model (lowest BIC value: P < .10). We sought factors independently associated with TRECS and JSPPPE, accounting for potential confounders, using both multivariable linear regression as well as negative binomial regression models and only included the model with the lowest BIC value (the best model fit: multivariable linear regression). We reported regression coefficients, 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), P-value, and semipartial R². We also assessed the overlap between TRECS and JSPPPE using Spearman's rank correlation with nonparametric bootstrapping (with replacement, n = 1000). Due to growing concerns that collinearity between mental and social health measures can distort the results of regressions,¹⁴ we ran a posthoc k-means cluster analysis to identify statistical groupings of mental and social health factors in order to limit problems with collinearity. We allowed up to 20 clusters to be generated and identified the optimal number of clusters to retain using the “elbow” method described by Yuan and Yang while aiming to maintain at least 10 observations per cluster.¹⁷ We decided to select both the 3-cluster and 6-cluster solutions, considering the “elbow” method pointed to the 6-cluster solution, whereas only the 3-cluster solution has at least 10 observations in each cluster. We believe both clusters are informative and therefore compared the mean differences in TRECS and JSPPPE between the identified clusters using one-way ANOVA tests for both cluster solutions. All variables with a P-value below .05 were considered statistically significant.

An a priori sample size calculation determined that 135 patients were needed for 80% statistical power to determine whether unhelpful thoughts and feelings of distress account for 10% or more of the variation in TRECS in a linear regression with 10 explanatory variables, if the complete model explains 25% or more of the overall variability. We enrolled 177 patients as we wanted to power the study to also compare 2 different methods for including variables in multivariable regression analysis: (1) including all available confounders, (2) selecting variables based on P value in bivariate analysis (P < .10 or P < .20).

Results

What Factors Are Associated With Patient Experience Measured Using TRECS?

Accounting for potential confounding factors identified in bivariate analysis (such as new or return visit, specific care unit, and patient self-reported race/ethnicity), no factors were associated with TRECS (Table 2). An additional posthoc cluster analysis was performed that identified both 3 and 6 cluster models of statistical groupings of levels of thoughts, emotions, and social health. In the 3-cluster solution, statistical groupings with healthier mindset and better social health were associated with modestly greater trust and experience with the physician (Table 3). The 6-cluster solution identified more complex variation in TRECS based on variation in both thoughts and emotions, as well as social health (Table 4). The highest level of trust and experience in the clinician was associated with very good social health and healthy thoughts and emotions (group 6). Both compromised social health and less healthy thoughts and emotions were associated with more notable decrements in levels of trust and experience than in the 3-cluster solution.

Table 2.

Multivariable Linear Regression Analysis of Factors Associated With the 7-Item Version of the Trust and Experience With Clinician Scale (TRECS).

Variables	Regression coefficient (95% confidence interval)	P-value	Semipartial R²
Social health	0.067 (−0.061-0.020)	.30	0.029
Feelings of distress	0.11 (−0.14-0.36)	.39	0.0023
Unhelpful thoughts	−0.27 (−0.59-0.042)	.089	0.033
Patient visit			0.024
New patient	Reference value
Return patient	1.5 (−0.016-3.0)	.053
Clinic location			0.0027
Office 1	Reference value
Office 2	−0.044 (−2.9-2.8)	.98
Office 3	1.52 (−1.5-4.6)	.33
Other	−0.80 (−3.7-2.1)	.59
Race			0.0011
White/Caucasian	Reference value
Hispanic/Latin	−2.0 (−4.2-0.23)	.078
Black/Afro-American	−0.84 (−3.9-2.2)	.59
Asian/Other	1.8 (−0.79-4.4)	.17
Insurance			<0.001
Private	Reference value
Medicare	1.2 (−0.45-2.9)	.15
Safety net (MAP, Medicaid) or uninsured	0.54 (−1.8-2.9)	.66

Model fit statistics: R² = 0.18, adjusted R² = 0.12, AIC = 972.

Table 3.

Clusters Associated With Trust and Experience With the Clinician Scale (TRECS) With the 3-Cluster Solution.

	Feelings of distress	Unhelpful thoughts	Social health	TRECS*	JSPPPE^
Group 1 (n = 53)	z-score = 0.70Mean = 9.1 ± 3.0	z-score = 0.64Mean = 8.4 ± 2.5	z-score = −0.49Mean = 25 ± 3.2	22 ± 3.5	30 ± 3.8
Group 2 (n = 28)	z-score = −0.24Mean = 6.1 ± 2.8	z-score = −0.25Mean = 6.0 ± 2.3	z-score = −1.5Mean = 18 ± 4.1	22 ± 4.9	29 ± 4.1
Group 3 (n = 84)	z-score = −0.37Mean = 5.7 ± 2.8	z-score = −0.35Mean = 5.8 ± 2.4	z-score = 0.80Mean = 33 ± 2.6	24 ± 5.2	31 ± 5.3

P = .03, TRECS, Trust and Experience With Clinician Scale. ^{^} P = .09, JSPPPE, Jefferson's Scale of Patient Perceptions of Physician Empathy.

Table 4.

Clusters Associated With Trust and Experience With the Clinician Scale (TRECS) With 6-Cluster Solution.

	Feelings of distress	Unhelpful thoughts	Social health	TRECS*	JSPPPE^
Group 1 (n = 2)	z-score = −1.2Mean = 3 ± 0(values 3 and 3)	z-score = −1.2Mean = 3.5 ± 0.71(values 3 and 4)	z-score = −2.9Mean = 9 ± 7.1 (values 4 and 14)	18 ± 4.2	26 ± 6.4
Group 2 (n = 34)	z-score = −0.20mean = 6.2 ± 2.3	z-score = −0.16Mean = 6.3 ± 2.0	z-score = −1.1Mean = 21 ± 2.5	21 ± 4.5	29 ± 3.9
Group 3 (n = 40)	z-score = −0.28Mean = 6.0 ± 2.1	z-score = −0.028Mean = 6.6 ± 2.3	z-score = 0.017Mean = 28 ± 1.8	22 ± 6.3	29 ± 6.8
Group 4 (n = 17)	z-score = 1.5Mean = 12 ± 1.4	z-score = 1.5Mean = 11 ± 1.8	z-score = −1.3Mean = 20 ± 3.3	23 ± 3.3	30 ± 3.1
Group 5 (n = 30)	z-score = 1.0Mean = 10 ± 2.2	z-score = 0.35Mean = 7.7 ± 2.1	z-score = 0.72Mean = 33 ± 2.7	23 ± 3.8	31 ± 3.7
Group 6 (n = 42)	z-score = −0.85Mean = 4.1 ± 1.7	z-score = −0.68Mean = 4.9 ± 2.3	z-score = 1.0Mean = 35 ± 1.7	25 ± 3.2	32 ± 3.2

P = .003, TRECS, Trust and Experience With Clinician Scale. ^{^} P = .009, JSPPPE, Jefferson's Scale of Patient Perceptions of Physician Empathy.

What Factors Are Associated With Patient Experience Measured Using JSPPPE?

Accounting for potential confounding factors such as new or return visit and patient self-reported race/ethnicity, we found that only self-described Hispanic/Latino ethnicity was associated with lower patient perceived physician empathy (RC = –2.8, 95% CI = –4.9 to −0.63; P = .012) (Table 5). The clusters identified in the 6-cluster, but not the 3-cluster solution, were associated with mean differences in perceived clinician empathy (JSPPE; Tables 3 and 4).

Table 5.

Multivariable Linear Regression Analysis of Factors Associated With JSPPPE.

Variables	Regression coefficient (95% confidence interval)	P-value	Semipartial R²
Social health	0.06 (−0.06-0.19)	.34	0.022
Feelings of distress	0.11 (−0.14-0.36)	.40	0.005
Unhelpful thoughts	−0.23 (−0.53-0.08)	.15	0.023
Patient visit			0.025
New patient	Reference value
Return patient	1.4 (−0.03-2.8)	.055
Race			<0.001
White/Caucasian	Reference value
Hispanic/Latin	−2.7 (−4.9 to −0.6)	.013
Black/Afro-American	0.51 (−2.5-3.5)	.74
Asian/Other	0.25 (−2.3-2.8)	.85

P-values < 0.05 are bolded. Model fit statistics: R² = 0.13, adjusted R² = 0.091, AIC = 971.

Discussion

Current PREMs are limited by notable ceiling effects and a non-Gaussian distribution.⁴ Such clustered responses at the top end of the scale limit the ability to identify modifiable factors that can help clinicians and care units to learn and improve their patients’ experience. PREMs correlate with each other, but, to date, they have modest and inconsistent correlations with other factors, such as patient personal factors. In this experiment, we tested whether TRECS could identify patient factors associated with better patient experience. In multivariable analysis, which is susceptible to multicollinearity and may be less well suited to identifying complex and nonlinear relationships, we found that TRECS was not associated with any factors, while JSPPPE was only associated with self-described Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. In a posthoc analysis using cluster analysis, a statistical technique that better accounts for collinearity and complex relationships, we selected 2 models with good performance that were both instructive. The 3-group model identified a relatively simple relationship between a better mindset (thoughts and emotions) and circumstances (social health), and modestly higher levels of trust and experience with the clinician. The 6-group solution identified some greater complexity, with variations in groupings of levels of less healthy thoughts and feelings and lower social health. The associations of experience measures (TRECS and JSPPE) noted with the cluster analysis are of interest because they indicate that the limited relationships in multivariable models may relate to relative collinearity between personal factors. The ability of an experience measure with a lower ceiling effect combined with cluster analysis to account for collinearity of patient personal factors has the potential to help individual clinicians and their organizations strategize and interpret their patient's experience as, in part, reflecting and representing aspects of their overall health. Considered in this regard, efforts to improve patient experience of care can anticipate the importance of social disadvantage and less healthy mindsets to a positive patient experience and develop strategies to help patients experiencing these psychosocial aspects of illness navigate care.

What Factors Are Associated With Patient Experience Ratings Measured Using TRECS and JSPPE?

The finding in the linear regression that no patient factors are associated with TRECS, and that JSPPPE was modestly associated with only Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, suggests that even a quantitative experience measure with less ceiling effects and more Gaussian distribution (TRECS) may not correlate with other measurable patient factors such as mental and social health factors. The finding of the planned analysis, that no matter a person's mindset and circumstances, it is possible to have a good experience, is consistent with prior research on PREMs by us and others.^9,18,19 But the finding of associations of psychosocial factors with variation in levels of patient experience suggests that collinearity among the mental and social health variables might be distorting and limiting the linear regression models. The association with TRECS in the cluster analysis may demonstrate the advantage of a more Gaussian distribution with lower ceiling effect for helping identify important associations. This is relevant to the related difficulty in identifying clinician factors associated with PREM scores.²⁰ It is implausible that neither patient factors nor clinician communication effectiveness are related to levels of patient experience. More plausible is that we have not developed the measurements and analyses needed to identify important associations. Some constructs that merit additional study for associated with PREM scores include intolerance of uncertainty, inflexible thinking (cognitive fusion). Our speculation is that discordance between the clinician's evaluation of the sensations patient's feel and the patient's inner narrative around pain and/or injury may be a key threat to a trusting relationship.⁹ Another consideration is the preliminary evidence that personality disorders, for instance, might be associated with worse patient-reported experience measures.²¹ The cluster analysis shows that complex nonlinear statistical analyses that better account for the interrelationship of patient personal factors are able to discern factors associated with varied levels of experience. Using these techniques, we can see that patient factors are one contributor to diminished patient experience in the form of trust in the clinician and perceived clinician empathy. The same may be identified in a more sophisticated analysis of clinician factors.

There were several limitations to this study. First, we used specific, short-form measures of mental and social health. A study using longer measures, which have more variation and less potential for floor and ceiling effects, might have different relationships to TRECS. That said, in prior work, even a few items about mindset and circumstances have identified associations with levels of comfort and capability, so if there are important associations of psychosocial factors with PREM scores, we should be able to detect them with these items. Second, this study included all musculoskeletal conditions and noted the typical, relatively high levels of trust and perceived empathy. Studies of specific diagnoses or subpopulations of patients that are known or suspected to be associated with lower patient ratings of experience—circumstances where the patient's experience conflicts with the medical facts, such as misperception of new pain from a degenerative condition as an injury, for instance—might identify patient factors associated with lower ratings of experience.^12,22 As another consideration, diffuse and disproportionate pains can be associated with greater feelings of distress and might be associated with worse patient experience, although some data suggests, on average, they are not.^23-25 Another consideration is the use of items that address thoughts and feelings regarding bodily sensations rather than levels of anxiety and depression in general. This approach was taken to avoid the known floor effects and nonforthright completion of measures of general anxiety and depression that are known to occur in musculoskeletal specialty care, and there may or may not be a disadvantage to this approach.^11,26 Lastly, the ability to choose the number of statistical clusters in cluster analysis may seem unsettlingly subjective. The reader should keep in mind that there is no best or correct statistical approach, that all of them have subjective aspects that must be informed by expertise, and that the collective analysis can increase knowledge and inform future experiments. Given that the cluster analysis was unplanned, it should be considered provisional and hypothesis-generating until reproduced in planned experiments. Another consideration is that others have not used and validated the TRECS. This second validation study by our group found results consistent with the development, but external validation is needed. All of the Hispanic patients included spoke English as their primary language, so language difficulties with the questionnaires are unlikely.

Conclusion

Although TRECS provides a more varied distribution with lower ceiling effects than other PREMs, no associations of patient factors with patient experience were identified in standard multivariable analysis. However, using cluster analysis—a statistical technique that can account for collinearity between mental and social health variables and complex nonlinear relationships—we found associations between statistical groupings of patient mindsets and circumstances that are associated with variations in both perceived clinician empathy (JSPPPE) and trust and experiences with the clinician (TRECS). This represents evidence that the combination of a more Gaussian measure of patient experience with a lower ceiling effect, and employing more suitable statistical analyses, may facilitate the identification of modifiable patient and clinician factors with the potential to improve patient experience.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was not funded. The work was performed at the University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.

Ethical Approval

The IRB determined that this protocol was approved and exempted from further review under 45 CFR 46.104 (2)(ii) Tests, surveys, interviews, or observation (low risk). IRB ID: STUDY00004831.

Statement of Human and Animal Rights

Not applicable.

Informed Consent

Not applicable.

ORCID iD

David Ring

References

Rajagopalan

Thomas

Ring

Fatehi

. Quantitative patient-reported experience measures derived from natural language processing have a normal distribution and no ceiling effect. Qual Manag Health Care. 31(4):210-218. doi:10.1097/QMH.0000000000000355

Kirby

Knowles

Patel

, et al. The influence of patient perception of physician empathy on patient satisfaction among attending physicians working with residents in an emergent care setting. Health Sci Rep. 2021;4(3):e337. doi:10.1002/hsr2.337

Kline

Lin

Hall

, et al. Perception of physician empathy varies with educational level and gender of patients undergoing low-yield computerized tomographic imaging. J Patient Exp. 2020;7(3):386-394. doi:10.1177/2374373519838529

Versluijs

Lemmers

Brown

Gonzalez

Kortlever

JTP

Ring

. The correlation of communication effectiveness and patient satisfaction. J Patient Exp. 2021;8. doi:10.1177/2374373521998839

Gonzalez

Kortlever

JTP

Rijk

Ring

Brown

Reichel

. Is there a correlation between the patient-doctor relationship questionnaire and other patient-reported experience measures? Patient Exp J. 2020;7(1):44-50. doi:10.35680/2372-0247.1399

Crijns

Segina

Kortlever

JTP

, et al. Moderators and mediators of the relationship of shared decision-making and satisfaction. J Patient Exp. 2023:10. doi:10.1177/23743735231171563

Keulen

MHF

Teunis

Kortlever

JTP

Vagner

Ring

Reichel

. Measurement of perceived physician empathy in orthopedic patients. J Patient Exp. 2020;7(4):600-606. doi:10.1177/2374373519875842

AlRuthia

Alwhaibi

Almalag

, et al. The relationship between trust in primary healthcare providers among patients with diabetes and levels of depression and anxiety. PLoS One. 2020;15(9):e0239035. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0239035

Vranceanu

Ring

. Factors associated with patient satisfaction. J Hand Surg Am. 2011;36(9):1504-1508. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2011.06.001

10.

Badejo

Ramtin

Rossano

Ring

Koenig

Crijns

. Does adjusting for social desirability reduce ceiling effects and increase variation of patient-reported experience measures? J Patient Exp. 2022;9. doi:10.1177/23743735221079144

11.

Guattery

Dardas

Kelly

Chamberlain

McAndrew

Calfee

. Floor effect of PROMIS depression CAT associated with hasty completion in orthopaedic surgery patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018;476(4):696-703. doi:10.1007/s11999.0000000000000076

12.

Lemmers

Versluijs

Kortlever

JTP

Gonzalez

Ring

. Misperception of disease onset in people with gradual-onset disease of the upper extremity. J Bone Joint Surgery. 2020;102(24):2174-2180. doi:10.2106/JBJS.20.00420

13.

Brinkman

Looman

Jayakumar

Ring

Choi

. Is it possible to develop a patient-reported experience measure with lower ceiling effect? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2025;483(4):693-703. doi:10.1097/CORR.0000000000003262

14.

Teunis

Al Salman

Koenig

Ring

Fatehi

. Unhelpful thoughts and distress regarding symptoms limit accommodation of musculoskeletal pain. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2022;480(2):276-283. doi:10.1097/CORR.0000000000002006

15.

Broekman

Brinkman

Thomas

, et al. Associations of mental, social, and pathophysiological factors with pain intensity and capability in patients with shoulder osteoarthritis prior to shoulder arthroplasty: a Dutch Arthroplasty Register Study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2025;34(4):979-986. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2024.07.034

16.

Kane

Gotto

Mangione

West

Hojat

. Jefferson scale of patient’s perceptions of physician empathy: preliminary psychometric data. Croat Med J. 2007;48(1):81-86.

17.

Yuan

Yang

. Research on K-value selection method of K-means clustering algorithm. J (Basel). 2019; https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:196189546 .

18.

Simsekler

MCE

Alhashmi

Azar

King

Luqman

RAMA

Al Mulla

Exploring drivers of patient satisfaction using a random forest algorithm. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021;21(1):157. doi:10.1186/s12911-021-01519-5

19.

Wachira

Mwangi

Chemutai

Nyambura

Genberg

Wilson

. Higher clinician-patient communication is associated with greater satisfaction with HIV care. J Int Assoc Prov AIDS Care (JIAPAC). 2021;20. doi:10.1177/23259582211054935

20.

Brown

Chng

Kortlever

JTP

Ring

Crijns

. There is little or no association between independently assessed communication strategies and patient ratings of clinician empathy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2023;481(5):984-991. doi:10.1097/CORR.0000000000002482

21.

Hueston

Mainous

Schilling

. Patients with personality disorders: functional status, health care utilization, and satisfaction with care. J Fam Pract. 1996;42(1):54-60.

22.

Liu

Leung

Edwards

Ring

Bernacki

Tonn

. Patients older than 40 years with unilateral occupational claims for new shoulder and knee symptoms have bilateral MRI changes. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(10):2360-2365. doi:10.1007/s11999-017-5401-y

23.

Ottenhoff

JSE

Derkzen

Reichel

Vagner

Loeb

Ring

. Satisfaction with specific and nonspecific diagnoses. J Hand Surg Am. 2019;44(6):460-466. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.10.012

24.

Vranceanu

Safren

Zhao

Cowan

Ring

. Disability and psychologic distress in patients with nonspecific and specific arm pain. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(11):2820-2826. doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0378-1

25.

Vranceanu

Safren

Cowan

Ring

. Health concerns and somatic symptoms explain perceived disability and idiopathic hand and arm pain in an orthopedics surgical practice: a path-analysis model. Psychosomatics. 2010;51(4):330-337. doi:10.1176/appi.psy.51.4.330

26.

Beleckas

Prather

Guattery

Wright

Kelly

Calfee

. Anxiety in the orthopedic patient: using PROMIS to assess mental health. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(9):2275-2282. doi:10.1007/s11136-018-1867-7

What Factors Are Associated With Trust and Experience With the Clinician?

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Background

Rationale

Questions

Methods

Study Design and Setting

Participants

Measured Explanatory Variables

Primary Outcome Measures

Statistical Analysis

Results

What Factors Are Associated With Patient Experience Measured Using TRECS?

What Factors Are Associated With Patient Experience Measured Using JSPPPE?

Discussion

What Factors Are Associated With Patient Experience Ratings Measured Using TRECS and JSPPE?

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethical Approval

Statement of Human and Animal Rights

Informed Consent

ORCID iD

References