Patient Satisfaction and Its Relationship With Quality and Outcomes of Care After Acute Myocardial Infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction is a widely used measurement for the evaluation of medical care. We examined the extent to which quality of care received after acute myocardial infarction predicted subsequent patient satisfaction with care and whether patient satisfaction itself was associated with long-term survival after acute myocardial infarction. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a longitudinal cohort of acute myocardial infarction, we examined the associations of patient-reported satisfaction with care with clinical characteristics, physical and psychological function measures, quality indicators of myocardial infarction care, and outcomes. Among 1933 eligible patients (mean age 62.9+/-12.8 years, 70.5% men), 1866 survey respondents were analyzed. Of the study cohort, 1711 (91.7%) reported that they were satisfied with their overall care. Patients who reported satisfaction with care were older (mean age 63.1+/-12.7 versus 60.1+/-13.3 years, P=0.005), had improved physical function, and were less likely to be depressed. Better physical function, measured by the Specific Activity Scale, predicted higher satisfaction, with an OR of 1.75 (95% CI 1.17 to 2.68, P=0.008) for intermediate versus poor function and 2.96 (1.39 to 7.34, P=0.009) for high versus poor function, after adjustment for age, sex, income tertile, and ethnicity. Depression was the major predictor of dissatisfaction with overall care, with an OR of 0.44 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.67, P<0.001). Quality indicators for myocardial infarction care and clinical outcomes were not associated with patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Satisfaction with care was more likely in patients who were older, in those without depression, and in those with better functional capacity, but it was not associated with the quality of myocardial infarction care or survival.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".