Determining Patients’ Satisfaction Level With Hospital Emergency Rooms in Iran: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emergency department is one of the important parts of hospitals, and patients' satisfaction with this department significantly affects their overall satisfaction with the hospital. Therefore, evaluating patients' satisfaction level with the emergency part has been taken into account in different studies. The purpose of this study was to systematically review all available primary studies and their results and to evaluate patients' satisfaction level with emergency rooms of hospitals. In this study, previous documents were reviewed; to do this, national and international databases were searched electronically and related articles were extracted. Reference list of the published studies were also reviewed to increase sensitivity and to select a greater number of articles. Reviewing and studying titles and texts of the articles, repeated and unrelated cases were excluded. The remaining articles were entered into stat aver., 11 for meta-analysis. After meta-analysis, 24 articles were selected. The lowest and highest satisfaction level was 24 and 98.4% respectively. Meta-analysis results of studies showed that general evaluation of patients' satisfaction level with emergency rooms of hospitals was 68.9% in Iran. This meta-analysis revealed that patients' satisfaction level with performance and with the way services were presented in emergency rooms of hospitals was desirable in Iran. Concerning multifactorial nature of patients' satisfaction, it is necessary to take this matter into regular and routine consideration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".