The ultimate question? Evaluating the use of Net Promoter Score in healthcare: A systematic review
- PMID: 35985676
- PMCID: PMC9615049
- DOI: 10.1111/hex.13577
The ultimate question? Evaluating the use of Net Promoter Score in healthcare: A systematic review
Abstract
Background: Patient experience is a complex phenomenon that presents challenges for appropriate and effective measurement. With the lack of a standardized measurement approach, efforts have been made to simplify the evaluation and reporting of patient experience by using single-item measures, such as the Net Promoter Score (NPS). Although NPS is widely used in many countries, there has been little research to validate its effectiveness and value in the healthcare setting. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the evidence that is available about the application of NPS in healthcare settings.
Methods: Studies were identified using words and synonyms that relate to NPS, which was applied to five electronic databases: Medline, CINAHL, Proquest, Business Journal Premium, and Scopus. Titles and abstracts between January 2005 and September 2020 were screened for relevance, with the inclusion of quantitative and qualitative studies in the healthcare setting that evaluated the use of NPS to measure patient experience.
Results: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Four studies identified benefits associated with using NPS, such as ease of use, high completion rates and being well-understood by a range of patients. Three studies questioned the usefulness of the NPS recommendation question in healthcare settings, particularly when respondents are unable to select their service provider. The free-text comments section, which provides additional detail and contextual cues, was viewed positively by patients and staff in 4 of 12 studies. According to these studies, NPS can be influenced by a wide range of variables, such as age, condition/disease, intervention and cultural variation; therefore, caution should be taken when using NPS for comparisons. Four studies concluded that NPS adds minimal value to healthcare improvement.
Conclusion: The literature suggests that many of the proposed benefits of using NPS are not supported by research. NPS may not be sufficient as a stand-alone metric and may be better used in conjunction with a larger survey. NPS may be more suited for use in certain healthcare settings, for example, where patients have a choice of provider. Staff attitudes towards the use of NPS for patient surveying are mixed. More research is needed to validate the use of NPS as a primary metric of patient experience.
Patient or public contribution: Consumer representatives were provided with the research findings and their feedback was sought about the study. Consumers commented that they found the results to be useful and felt that this study highlighted important considerations when NPS data is used to evaluate patient experience.
Keywords: Friends and Family Test; Net Promoter Score; healthcare; improvement; measurement; patient experience; quality.
© 2022 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Comparison of the effectiveness of inhaler devices in asthma and chronic obstructive airways disease: a systematic review of the literature.Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(26):1-149. doi: 10.3310/hta5260. Health Technol Assess. 2001. PMID: 11701099
-
Cost-effectiveness of using prognostic information to select women with breast cancer for adjuvant systemic therapy.Health Technol Assess. 2006 Sep;10(34):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-204. doi: 10.3310/hta10340. Health Technol Assess. 2006. PMID: 16959170
-
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine and vinorelbine in non-small-cell lung cancer.Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(32):1-195. doi: 10.3310/hta5320. Health Technol Assess. 2001. PMID: 12065068
-
Comparison of cellulose, modified cellulose and synthetic membranes in the haemodialysis of patients with end-stage renal disease.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(3):CD003234. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003234. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Jul 20;(3):CD003234. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003234.pub2. PMID: 11687058 Updated.
-
Eliciting adverse effects data from participants in clinical trials.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 16;1(1):MR000039. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000039.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018. PMID: 29372930 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Six Sigma can significantly reduce costs of poor quality of the surgical instruments sterilization process and improve surgeon and operating room personnel satisfaction.Sci Rep. 2023 Aug 29;13(1):14116. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-41393-x. Sci Rep. 2023. PMID: 37644121 Free PMC article.
-
Patient-Clinician Communication Interventions Across Multiple Primary Care Sites: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA Health Forum. 2024 Dec 6;5(12):e244436. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.4436. JAMA Health Forum. 2024. PMID: 39671203 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Implementation of a conversational, videoconferencing-based therapy group for postpartum depression and anxiety symptoms: A pragmatic evaluation.Digit Health. 2024 Aug 5;10:20552076241269630. doi: 10.1177/20552076241269630. eCollection 2024 Jan-Dec. Digit Health. 2024. PMID: 39108253 Free PMC article.
-
Comparing models that integrate obstetric care and WIC on improved program enrollment during pregnancy: a protocol for a randomized controlled trial.BMC Public Health. 2024 Dec 5;24(1):3393. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-20509-6. BMC Public Health. 2024. PMID: 39639285 Free PMC article.
-
German Version of the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire and Derived Short Questionnaires for Usability and Perceived Usefulness in Health Care Assessment in Telehealth and Digital Therapeutics: Instrument Validation Study.JMIR Hum Factors. 2024 Nov 21;11:e57771. doi: 10.2196/57771. JMIR Hum Factors. 2024. PMID: 39571151 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Robert G, Cornwell J. Rethinking policy approaches to measuring and improving patient experience. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(2):67‐69. 10.1177/1355819612473583 - DOI
-
- Wolf JA, Niederhauser V, Marshburn D, LaVela SL. Defining patient experience. Patient Exp J. 2014;1(1):7‐19. 10.35680/2372-0247.1004 - DOI
-
- Harrison R, Walton M, Healy J, Smith‐Merry J, Hobbs C. Patient complaints about hospital services: applying a complaint taxonomy to analyse and respond to complaints. Int J Qual Health Care. 2016;28(2):240‐245. - PubMed
-
- Kash B, McKahan M. The evolution of measuring patient satisfaction. J Prim Health Care Gen Pract. 2017;1(1):1‐4.
-
- Walton MM, Harrison R, Kelly P, et al. Patients' reports of adverse events: a data linkage study of Australian adults aged 45 years and over. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26(9):1‐8. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous