These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
197 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27965350)
1. Measuring the patient experience in primary care: Comparing e-mail and waiting room survey delivery in a family health team. Slater M; Kiran T Can Fam Physician; 2016 Dec; 62(12):e740-e748. PubMed ID: 27965350 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Differences in Mode Preferences, Response Rates, and Mode Effect Between Automated Email and Phone Survey Systems for Patients of Primary Care Practices: Cross-Sectional Study. Johnston S; Hogg W; Wong ST; Burge F; Peterson S J Med Internet Res; 2021 Jan; 23(1):e21240. PubMed ID: 33427675 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Assessing the representativeness of physician and patient respondents to a primary care survey using administrative data. Li A; Cronin S; Bai YQ; Walker K; Ammi M; Hogg W; Wong ST; Wodchis WP BMC Fam Pract; 2018 May; 19(1):77. PubMed ID: 29848292 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Understanding disparities in primary care patient experience. Zhong A; Davie S; Wang R; Kiran T Can Fam Physician; 2021 Jul; 67(7):e178-e187. PubMed ID: 34261726 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. E-mail or snail mail? Randomized controlled trial on which works better for surveys. Seguin R; Godwin M; MacDonald S; McCall M Can Fam Physician; 2004 Mar; 50():414-9. PubMed ID: 15318679 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Assessing Patient Satisfaction and Experience With an Electronic Referral Process. Mohammed HT; Huebner LA Qual Manag Health Care; 2020; 29(1):20-29. PubMed ID: 31855932 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Academic family health teams: Part 2: patient perceptions of access. Carroll JC; Talbot Y; Permaul J; Tobin A; Moineddin R; Blaine S; Bloom J; Butt D; Kay K; Telner D Can Fam Physician; 2016 Jan; 62(1):e31-9. PubMed ID: 27331229 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The effect of administration mode on CAHPS survey response rates and results: A comparison of mail and web-based approaches. Fowler FJ; Cosenza C; Cripps LA; Edgman-Levitan S; Cleary PD Health Serv Res; 2019 Jun; 54(3):714-721. PubMed ID: 30656646 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Mixing web and mail methods in a survey of physicians. Beebe TJ; Locke GR; Barnes SA; Davern ME; Anderson KJ Health Serv Res; 2007 Jun; 42(3 Pt 1):1219-34. PubMed ID: 17489911 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. E-Mail Communication Practices and Preferences Among Patients and Providers in a Large Comprehensive Cancer Center. Cook N; Maganti M; Dobriyal A; Sheinis M; Wei AC; Ringash J; Krzyzanowska MK J Oncol Pract; 2016 Jul; 12(7):676-84. PubMed ID: 27352950 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Academic family health teams: Part 1: patient perceptions of core primary care domains. Carroll JC; Talbot Y; Permaul J; Tobin A; Moineddin R; Blaine S; Bloom J; Butt D; Kay K; Telner D Can Fam Physician; 2016 Jan; 62(1):e23-30. PubMed ID: 27331228 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Disparities in Secure Messaging Uptake Between Patients and Physicians: Longitudinal Analysis of Two National Cross-Sectional Surveys. Heisey-Grove DM; Carretta HJ J Med Internet Res; 2020 May; 22(5):e12611. PubMed ID: 32356775 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. An international cross-sectional survey on the Quality and Costs of Primary Care (QUALICO-PC): recruitment and data collection of places delivering primary care across Canada. Wong ST; Chau LW; Hogg W; Teare GF; Miedema B; Breton M; Aubrey-Bassler K; Katz A; Burge F; Boivin A; Cooke T; Francoeur D; Wodchis WP BMC Fam Pract; 2015 Feb; 16():20. PubMed ID: 25879427 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Electronic communication between family physicians and patients: Findings from a multisite survey of academic family physicians in Ontario. Girdhari R; Krueger P; Wang R; Meaney C; Domb S; Larsen D; Kiran T Can Fam Physician; 2021 Jan; 67(1):39-46. PubMed ID: 33483396 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Large-Scale Survey Findings Inform Patients' Experiences in Using Secure Messaging to Engage in Patient-Provider Communication and Self-Care Management: A Quantitative Assessment. Haun JN; Patel NR; Lind JD; Antinori N J Med Internet Res; 2015 Dec; 17(12):e282. PubMed ID: 26690761 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A comparison of a postal survey and mixed-mode survey using a questionnaire on patients' experiences with breast care. Zuidgeest M; Hendriks M; Koopman L; Spreeuwenberg P; Rademakers J J Med Internet Res; 2011 Sep; 13(3):e68. PubMed ID: 21946048 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Using self-reported data on the social determinants of health in primary care to identify cancer screening disparities: opportunities and challenges. Lofters AK; Schuler A; Slater M; Baxter NN; Persaud N; Pinto AD; Kucharski E; Davie S; Nisenbaum R; Kiran T BMC Fam Pract; 2017 Feb; 18(1):31. PubMed ID: 28241787 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Patient satisfaction in otolaryngology: Can academic institutions compete? Boss EF; Thompson RE Laryngoscope; 2012 May; 122(5):1000-9. PubMed ID: 22461170 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Vaccine storage and handling. Knowledge and practice in primary care physicians' offices. Yuan L; Daniels S; Naus M; Brcic B Can Fam Physician; 1995 Jul; 41():1169-76. PubMed ID: 7647622 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Do on-site patient satisfaction surveys bias results? Burroughs TE; Waterman BM; Gilin D; Adams D; McCollegan J; Cira J Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf; 2005 Mar; 31(3):158-66. PubMed ID: 15828599 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]