Radiography 29 (2023) 1029e1034

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Radiography
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/radi

Patient satisfaction with radiology services in the UAE: A

comprehensive analysis of care, comfort, service, and accessibility
M.M. Abuzaid*, F. Haider, N. Al Amry, R. Abousalem, Z. Habib
Medical Diagnostic Imaging Department, College of Health Sciences, University of Sharjah Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Introduction: This paper analyses patient satisfaction with radiology services in the United Arab Emirates
Received 15 June 2023 (UAE). The study evaluates the care, comfort, service, and accessibility of the services and patient
Received in revised form satisfaction with imaging procedures.
23 August 2023
Methods: The research design employed a descriptive, cross-sectional approach, and data were collected
Accepted 29 August 2023
through a survey consisting of eight sections. A total of 444 participants completed the survey, providing
Available online 7 September 2023
valuable insights into their demographics, appointment experiences, waiting times, staff attitudes and
overall satisfaction.
Keywords:
Satisfaction
Results: 70.4% of the participants stated that it was easy to make appointments, and 66.1% stated that
Patient they were satisfied with the efficiency of check-ins. 54.9% felt they waited the right amount of time to
Radiology services make an appointment, and 56.1% were satisfied with the time waiting to receive the imaging report. The
Patient care findings indicate that waiting times and staff attitudes significantly influence patient satisfaction, while
United Arab Emirates demographic factors, such as nationality, education, and age, do not significantly impact them. The study
concludes that healthcare providers should prioritise efficient appointment scheduling, reduce waiting
times and foster positive patientestaff interactions to enhance patient satisfaction. The open-ended
feedback provided by the participants also offers valuable suggestions for improving service quality.
Conclusion: This study is a foundation for future research and provides healthcare organisations with
valuable insights to enhance patient satisfaction in UAE radiology services.
Implications for practice: Healthcare providers should focus on patient satisfaction to improve retention
and loyalty, attract new patients and enhance their reputation.
© 2023 The College of Radiographers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction patients, and enhancing their reputation. In a competitive health-

Patient satisfaction refers to the degree of satisfaction that pa-
tients feel with the healthcare services they have received.1 It
measures how well healthcare providers meet patients' expecta-
tions and needs. Patient satisfaction can be measured through
various methods, such as surveys, feedback forms, and focus
groups.2 Healthcare providers use patient satisfaction data to
evaluate their services’ quality and identify improvement areas.
Factors that can affect patient satisfaction include the quality of
care, communication with healthcare providers, waiting times,
access to care, cleanliness of the facility, and the overall patient
experience.3,4 Healthcare providers can improve patient retention
and loyalty by focusing on patient satisfaction, attracting new
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mabdelfatah@sharjah.ac.ae (M.M. Abuzaid).
care market, focusing on patient satisfaction offers numerous ad-
vantages. It boosts patient retention, attracts new patients, and
builds a strong reputation, all contributing to sustained success.1
Patient engagement emphasises collaboration between health-
care providers and patients to improve the quality of care and
outcomes.3 The goal is to create a more patient-centred healthcare
system that empowers patients to take control of their health and
well-being.5 Initiatives such as patient portals, patient advisory
councils, patient education programs, and patient-centred medical
homes are a few examples. Through patient engagement, health-
care providers can improve patient satisfaction, adherence to
treatment plans, and health outcomes while reducing healthcare
costs and improving the overall quality of care.2,4,6
Patient contentment plays a pivotal role in medical imaging
procedures due to its potential influence on the patient's willing-
ness to partake in the process, adhere to recommended treatment
protocols, and exhibit willingness for future imaging sessions. To

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2023.08.007
1078-8174/© 2023 The College of Radiographers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.M. Abuzaid, F. Haider, N. Al Amry et al. Radiography 29 (2023) 1029e1034

foster patient involvement, informative sessions about the pro-
cedure encompassing expected experiences, potential risks, and
preparatory guidelines can be employed. Active interaction with
patients, addressing their concerns, and creating an environment of
comfort during the examination process have amplified their
gratification levels.3,7,8
Radiography procedures are conducted in the UAE at multiple
centres, such as private and government hospitals, clinics, and
diagnostic centres. Upon the request being issued from the doctors,
the patients can get their procedures done within the same hospital
or clinic or at any centre of their choice. The procedures can be
scheduled for the same or within the next few days, depending on
the time taken for the insurance approval, appointment availability,
and preparation for the patient (admission to the ward, fasting,
etc.). Radiology units are usually staffed with radiographers con-
ducting the examination, receptionists who manage appointments
and a radiology nurse if required.
This study aimed to analyse patients' satisfaction with the care,
comfort and service provided by the radiology staff and the
accessibility of services and information in the radiology unit. This
is the first study investigating patient satisfaction with imaging
procedures in the UAE. The study's conclusions and recommenda-
tions will be shared with the concerned organisation, and further
investigation will be conducted to improve service quality.
Methods
population. The calculation indicated that the study needed a
minimum of 444 participants. During this period, responses were
received from 444 participants who had undergone imaging pro-
cedures within the last year in the UAE. The sample selection
criteria were that participants aged 18 years or older with imaging
in the UAE could complete the surveys in either English or Arabic
without difficulty and were willing to participate.
Data collection
The online survey was an open invite distributed through social
media and virtual platforms like Instagram, Facebook and What-
sApp, indicating the inclusion criteria. All data were then entered
into Microsoft Excel 365. Participants who consented to participate
in the study were given information about its objectives and signed
consent forms after receiving it.
Data analysis
The data analysis was performed using the SPSS software Sta-
tistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25. The mean,
frequency, and percentages of demographic data and the responses
to the questions were calculated using descriptive statistics. Further
analysis was conducted by running parametric tests, such as t-tests
and one-way ANOVA.

Study design Ethical declarations

A descriptive, cross-sectional research design was used for the The Research Ethics Committee of the University of Sharjah
study. The survey consisted of eight sections. Part one gathered approved the study.
socio-demographic data (age, gender, nationality, languages,
highest education attained, date and type of facility of the most Results
recent imaging procedure received). Parts two to six collected the
participants' feedback on their previous imaging experience Demographics and participants’ backgrounds
regarding appointment experience, waiting time, staff attitude, and
satisfaction. The last section was an optional open-ended question Completed data were collected from 444 participants. Most
to share the participants’ suggestions or opinions on their imaging participants were 18e25 (77.6%, n ¼ 346) and were females (70.4%,
experience. n ¼ 314). All detailed demographic data are given in Table 1. Most
The survey was created in English and then translated into participants were non-UAE nationals (80.3%, n ¼ 358), and the
Arabic, and both were used depending on the participant's pref- commonly spoken language was Arabic (91.5%, N ¼ 408).
erence. A pilot study was then conducted before the admission of Many participants had their most recent imaging procedure
the final survey to check for clarity and to gain suggestions for done less than six months ago, i.e., between 0 and 6 months ago.
improving the survey. The pilot study was conducted among three (41.2%, n ¼ 182), and most had this done in private facilities (48.2%,
faculty members and three university staff members in both lan- n ¼ 215). Furthermore, most had had fewer than five imaging
guages. The data analysis did not include the feedback used to procedures conducted before (55.4%, n ¼ 247). Most participants
improve the survey or the data from the pilot study. mentioned that the procedure was conducted by a professional
who spoke English (75.8%, n ¼ 338) (see Table 2).
Measurements
Table 1
Patient satisfaction was measured on a 6-point Likert scale, Demographic data.
where 0 ¼ ‘Not Applicable’, 1 to 5 ¼ ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘Strongly
n %
Agree’. The total and mean were calculated to study the satisfaction
levels. The total satisfaction scores ranged from 0 to 40, where Age 18e25 years 346 77.9
higher total scores reflected higher patient satisfaction. The sur- 26e35 years 44 9.9
36e45 years 29 6.6
vey's satisfaction measurement includes eight items related to 46 and above 25 5.6
characteristics of various events, which are the receptionist's Gender Female 314 70.7
welcoming, radiation protection, infection control, preparations, Male 130 29.3
and care after the procedure. The mean score of these responses Nationality Locals (Emiratis) 85 19.2
Non-Locals (Expats) 358 80.7
was weighed as the patients' satisfaction score.
Highest education completed University degree 418 94.1
Postgraduate 26 5.9
Sampling Mother language Arabic 408 91.9
English 36 8.1
Through convenience sampling, data were collected for one Second Language English 413 93.0
Other 11 7.0
month. The sample size was calculated using the formula of a finite
1030
M.M. Abuzaid, F. Haider, N. Al Amry et al. Radiography 29 (2023) 1029e1034

Table 2 waiting times were obtained, and the mean was calculated based
Patient's past imaging experience. on the events experienced per participant.
n % Over half of the participants felt they waited the right time to
No. of procedures Less than 5 247 55.4
make an appointment (54.9%, n ¼ 245) and performed the pro-
More than 5 197 44.6 cedure (52.2%, n ¼ 233). The time waited to receive the imaging
Language spoke Arabic 120 26.9 report was also perceived as justifiable by 56.1% (n ¼ 250) of the
during procedures English 338 75.8 participants. The distribution of the responses is given in Table 4.
Facility Private 291 65.7
Government 153 34.3
How long ago was less than six months ago 187 42.3 Staff attitudes
the last procedure 6e12 months ago 257 57.7
The staff attitude was assessed through 6 questions. Data were
collected on a 4-point Likert scale, where 0 ¼ Not Applicable’,
Experience in making the appointment 1 ¼ ‘Bad’, 2 ¼ Average’ and 3 ¼ Excellent’. The total score was ob-
tained, and the mean was calculated based on their responses to
The study investigated the patient experience in making the each question.
appointment through 3 questions. Data were collected on a 3-point Most participants had a very positive outlook on the staff atti-
Likert scale, where 1 ¼ ‘Bad’, 2 ¼ Average’, and 3 ¼ Excellent’. The tude, as they stated excellent for the courtesy of the person who
overall score was calculated, and the mean was obtained for the took the appointment (73.3%, n ¼ 327), the friendliness of the
responses stated. receptionist (70.9%, n ¼ 31), the care and concern of the radiogra-
Most participants stated that they had an excellent experience pher (67.3%, n ¼ 300), the care and concern of the radiology nurse
(70.4%, n ¼ 314) with ease of making appointments. Most also (67.7%, n ¼ 302), the helpfulness of billing and insurance (58.3%,
stated the excellent availability of appointments within a reason- n ¼ 260), and the professionalism of the radiology staff (75.3%,
able amount of time (65.9%, n ¼ 294) and the efficiency of check-ins n ¼ 336). The distribution of the responses is given in Table 5.
(66.1%, n ¼ 295). The distribution of the responses is given in
Table 3. Patient satisfaction

Patient satisfaction was studied through 8 questions. This sec-

Waiting time
The patient's perception of the time they had to wait for their
procedure to be done following an appointment was analysed
through three questions. Data were collected on a 5-point Likert
scale, where 0 ¼ Not Applicable, 1 ¼ Very Long, 2 ¼ Long, 3 ¼ Just
Right, and 4 ¼ Short. Total scores for patients' perceptions of their
tion gathered data on a 6-point Likert scale, where 0 ¼ ‘Not
Applicable’, 1 through 5 ¼ ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘Agree Strongly’.
The total and mean were calculated to study the patients' satis-
faction levels.
Many participants agreed to be satisfied with the process and
the attitudes of the staff in the department. Most participants
strongly agreed that they were satisfied with the greeting and

Table 3
Patient experience in making an appointment.

Bad Average Excellent NA Mean SD

n % n % n % n %

Ease of making the appointment 5 1.1 101 22.7 314 70.7 24 5.4 2.58 0.76
Appointment available within a reasonable amount of time 15 3.4 116 26.1 294 66.2 19 4.3 2.54 0.75
The efficiency of the check-in process 12 2.7 128 28.8 295 66.4 9 2 2.59 0.64

Table 4
Patient waiting time.

Very Long Long Just right Short NA Mean SD

n % n % n % n % n %

Time waited to make an appointment 8 1.8 43 9.7 245 55.2 129 29.1 19 4.3 3.02 0.91
Time waited to do the procedure 13 2.9 59 13.3 233 52.5 135 30.4 4 0.9 3.08 0.79
Time waited to receive the image report 13 2.9 43 9.7 250 56.3 132 29.7 6 1.4 3.10 0.78

Table 5
Staff attitude.

Bad Average Excellent NA Mean SD

n % n % n % n %

The courtesy of the person who took your appointment 5 1.1 103 23.2 327 73.6 9 2 2.68 0.60
The friendliness and courtesy of the receptionist 12 2.7 114 25.7 316 71.2 2 0.5 2.67 0.54
The caring concern of radiographers 9 2 132 29.7 300 67.6 3 0.7 2.64 0.55
The caring concern of radiology nurse 6 1.4 119 26.8 302 68 17 3.8 2.59 0.70
The helpfulness of the billing or insurance 27 6.1 128 28.8 260 58.6 29 6.5 2.39 0.86
The professionalism of the radiology staff 7 1.6 100 22.5 336 75.7 1 0.2 2.73 0.48

1031
M.M. Abuzaid, F. Haider, N. Al Amry et al. Radiography 29 (2023) 1029e1034

welcoming of the radiology receptionist (50.7%, n ¼ 226) and with
the information provided by the receptionist (46.9%, n ¼ 209).
Further, there was also agreement from the majority of the par-
ticipants in being satisfied with the radiographers’ attitude in
welcoming (83.1%, n ¼ 369) and explaining the imaging procedure
(78.7%, n ¼ 349).
The participants were also satisfied with the radiation (53.6%,
n ¼ 239) and infection control (52.0%, n ¼ 232) practices followed
in the respective departments. Approximately half of the partici-
pants also strongly agreed that they were satisfied with the before
and after care of the imaging procedure (52.9%, n ¼ 236) and (50.2%,
n ¼ 224), respectively. The distribution of the responses is given in
Table 6.
Comparison of demographics and satisfaction
The study revealed that there was an association between the
participants' satisfaction and their gender (p ¼ 0.000); female
participants (m ¼ 4.36) had a higher mean satisfaction compared to
males (m ¼ 4.11). Furthermore, an association was also observed
between the participants’ language and their satisfaction levels
(p ¼ 0.01), where Arabic-speaking participants had a higher mean
(m ¼ 4.31) compared to non-Arabic-speaking (m ¼ 4.00).
No association was found between the participants’ satisfaction
and nationality (p ¼ 0.17), the highest education received
(p ¼ 0.25), or age. (p ¼ 0.08)

Comparison of satisfaction and imaging experience

Overall satisfaction
Overall satisfaction was an inquiry with three questions about
their experience and satisfaction level based on their last imaging
procedure. It gathered data on a 3-point Likert scale, where
1 ¼ ‘Bad’, 2 ¼ ‘Average’, and 3 ¼ ‘Excellent’.
When asked about the procedure's overall comfort, most par-
ticipants stated it was excellent (71.1%, n ¼ 317). Furthermore, most
participants also stated excellent when asked about the quality of
the imaging procedure (76.2%, n ¼ 340) and the healthcare team's
care quality (74.0%, n ¼ 330). The distribution is given in Table 7.
There was a statistically significant difference (p ¼ 0.000) in the
satisfaction of the participants who stated their waiting time was
short (m ¼ 4.5) compared to those who stated they waited for a
much more extended period (m ¼ 3.5). There was also a significant
association between the satisfaction levels of participants and their
experience in making the appointment (p ¼ 0.000), where partic-
ipants who stated excellent had a higher mean satisfaction
(m ¼ 4.35) compared to those who stated bad (m ¼ 3.96). The par-
ticipants’ perception of the staff attitude has a significant associa-
tion with their satisfaction levels (p ¼ 0.000), where participants

Table 6
Patient satisfaction.

I was satisfied with the NA Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Mean SD
…...
n % n % n % n % n % n %

greeting and 6 1.4 1 0.2 4 0.9 56 12.6 151 34 226 50.9 4.3 0.90
welcoming the
radiology receptionis
information provided 7 1.6 2 0.5 9 2 66 14.9 151 34 209 47.1 4.2 0.97
by the receptionis
greeting and 3 0.7 7 1.6 8 1.8 57 12.8 146 32.9 223 50.2 4.2 0.94
welcoming the
radiographer before
conducting the
procedure
information provided 2 0.5 7 1.6 25 5.6 61 13.7 125 28.2 224 50.5 4.1 1.02
by the radiographer
to explain the
imaging procedure
radiation protection 7 1.6 10 2.3 14 3.2 52 11.7 122 27.5 239 53.8 4.2 1.08
practice (e.g. use of
shielding, asking
about pregnancy if
female etc.)
infection control 2 0.5 4 0.9 6 1.4 50 11.3 150 33.8 232 52.3 4.3 0.85
practices (e.g. The
cleanliness of the
area.
preparation provided 4 0.9 4 0.9 12 2.7 52 11.7 136 30.6 236 53.2 4.2 0.94
before the procedure
after-procedure 4 0.9 10 2.3 14 3.2 63 14.2 129 29.1 224 50.5 4.1 1.04
informatio

Table 7
Overall satisfaction.

Bad Average Excellent Mean SD

n % n % n %

Overall comfort 8 18.0 119 26.7 317 71.1 2.6 0.49

The quality of the imaging procedure 3 6.0 101 22.6 340 76.2 2.7 0.44
The quality of care from the healthcare team 7 16.0 107 24.0 330 74.0 2.7 0.47

1032
M.M. Abuzaid, F. Haider, N. Al Amry et al. Radiography 29 (2023) 1029e1034

who had excellent experience had higher means (m ¼ 4.33) pointed out that although in some studies, men tended to be more
compared to those who had poor experiences (m ¼ 2.611). satisfied, in many other studies, women were more satisfied than
men.7,11 The Arabic-speaking participants demonstrated higher
Patients’ feedback about their imaging experience levels of satisfaction compared to the non-Arabic speakers. This
discrepancy can be attributed to the prevalence of English and
An optional open-ended question was included in the survey, Arabic as the most commonly spoken languages in hospitals and
inquiring about participants' comments and feedback about the clinics in the UAE. Arabic speakers whose first and second lan-
imaging experience they had undergone recently. Table 8 shows guages are Arabic and English, respectively, benefit from the com-
the participants’ responses to the open-ended questions. fort of communicating in their mother tongue. Non-Arabic
speakers, however, experience a loss of this linguistic convenience,
potentially impacting their overall satisfaction.
Discussion
Patients could make the imaging appointment, perform the
procedure, and receive the imaging report much sooner than their
This study is the first in the UAE to assess patient satisfaction
anticipated wait time, which correlated with increased satisfaction.
with radiology services, and it surveyed patients using a quantita-
A study that measured patients’ satisfaction with attending the
tive approach.
OPD in tertiary care hospitals found that the primary cause of client
The findings indicated that most participants said English was
dissatisfaction was waiting times greater than 30 min.12 Many
their second language, and the examination was conducted in En-
hospitals effectively address patient waiting times by implement-
glish. This observation aligns with the context of the UAE as a
ing over-the-phone and online appointment systems. However, in
nation with a substantial expatriate population, where public
instances of delays in patient examination or report issuing,
communication is predominantly conducted in English and Arabic.
transparent communication that provides patients with an accu-
The primary outcome of this study indicated high levels of
rate depiction of the circumstance can help mitigate dissatisfaction
satisfaction, as stipulated by the surveyed satisfaction de-
by aligning their expectations.
terminants. A high percentage of respondents answered “excellent”
The ease of making the imaging appointment, the reasonable
for the questions surveying the imaging experience, staff attitude,
availability, and the efficiency of the check-in process influenced
satisfaction, and overall satisfaction. Most participants perceived
how satisfied the patients were. A well-structured appointment
they had waited a reasonable amount of time for the events where
system reflects the value and appreciation placed on patients’ time,
waiting time applied, such as receiving the imaging report. Satis-
resulting in increased satisfaction. A set of guiding principles for
faction levels were higher due to many factors for which a signifi-
patient, public and practitioner partnerships10 within imaging and
cant statistical association was found.
radiotherapy pointed to the importance of considering patient-
The study concluded no association between patient satisfaction
centred approaches to booking and appointment systems.
and their age or educational qualification, consistent with a na-
The courtesy of the person who made the appointment, the
tional survey conducted in 2006 across 63 hospitals in the five
friendliness of the receptionist, the care of the radiographer, radi-
health regions of Norway exploring overall patient satisfaction with
ology nurse, and radiology staff, and the helpfulness of the billing
the services provided at the hospital.9
and insurance staff all significantly impacted the satisfaction of the
However, the results of a study that surveyed the satisfaction of
patients.13 This agrees with the findings of four studies conducted
participants from the Lothian region in southeast Scotland
in tertiary hospitals in different countries, which revealed that
regarding their hospital experience revealed that younger patients
nurses' courtesy, respect, careful listening, and easy access to care
are more dissatisfied for a variety of reasons, some of which include
were the strongest drivers of overall patient satisfaction.6 The staff's
elderly patients tend to have lower levels of expectations, they are
friendliness and approachability significantly contribute to the
less interested in details. They are less inclined to question what
patient's notion of helpfulness and set them at ease when seeking
they are told than younger patients.7 The age range is a natural
assistance or communicating their needs.
diversity that cannot be intervened in. In addition, as indicated, the
A high workload within the department, time constraints, or a
findings of some studies examining the correlation between de-
lack of effective communication in the patient's preferred language
mographic factors and patient satisfaction are conflicting, as not all
can contribute to the patient's perceiving a deficiency in atten-
have concluded that demographic data impact satisfaction.9,10
tiveness toward them. Patient engagement initiatives, such as pa-
The satisfaction among female participants in our study
tient portals, patient advisory councils, patient education programs,
appeared to be higher than that among male participants, consis-
and patient-centred medical homes, can improve patient satisfac-
tent with a summary of sixty-two studies reviewed to examine the
tion, adherence to treatment plans, and health outcomes while
relationship between socio-economic factors and reported satis-
reducing healthcare costs and improving the overall quality of care.
faction with the hospital services they received.11 The summary

Table 8
Participants’ suggestions and opinions.

More information about X-ray side effects would be helpful, as I have had many X-rays before.
I think the radiographer should make sure that every patient understands the instructions.
Try to give more information about the procedure.
Patient preparation and instruction were not provided thoroughly.
My imaging procedure required fasting for 4e6 h before the procedure, and this information was not given to me clearly by them; I had to ask them.
Why are we not allowed to see the images?
Sometimes I face difficulty booking appointments and a delay in obtaining the results,
I suggest the results of the X-rays are explained in both Arabic and English, so we lack translation in both governmental and private hospitals.
Allocate more rooms for imaging or x-rays to facilitate treatment and not wait.

1033
M.M. Abuzaid, F. Haider, N. Al Amry et al.
Radiology staff should demonstrate an authentic commitment to
the patient's well-being by fostering an empathetic and attentive
approach, increasing trust between the healthcare radiology staff
and patients. Consequently, this contributes to higher levels of
patient satisfaction.5,10
Conclusion
The paper aimed to analyse the patient's satisfaction with the
care, comfort, service, and accessibility provided by the radiog-
raphy staff in the UAE. The data was collected from 444 participants
who had undergone imaging procedures within the last year in the
UAE, and it was found that most participants were non-UAE na-
tionals, and Arabic was commonly spoken. The study concluded
that healthcare providers should educate patients about the im-
aging procedure, including what to expect, potential risks, and how
to prepare for it to enhance patient satisfaction. Healthcare pro-
viders should address patient concerns and make them comfort-
able with the examination procedure to improve patient
satisfaction and encourage patients to return for future imaging
procedures. Patient-centred care and addressing patient concerns
can encourage patients to return for future imaging procedures.
These findings suggest that healthcare providers should prioritise
patient satisfaction and engagement to improve the quality of care
and outcomes for patients undergoing radiology services in the
UAE.
Conflict of interest statement
None.
Acknowledgements
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
1034
Radiography 29 (2023) 1029e1034
References
1. Khoie MR, Tabrizi TS, khorasani ES, Rahimi S, Marhamati N. A hospital
recommendation system based on a patient satisfaction survey. Appl Sci
2017;7(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/app7100966.
2. Karaca A, Durna Z. Patient satisfaction with the quality of nursing care. Nurs
Open 2019;6(2):535e45. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.237.
3. Herrin J, Harris KG, Kenward K, Hines S, Joshi MS, Frosch DL. Patient and family
engagement: a survey of US hospital practices. BMJ Qual Saf 2016;25(3):182e9.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs2015-004006.
4. Baker GR, Fancott C, Judd M, O'Connor P. Expanding patient engagement in
quality improvement and health system redesign. Healthc Manag Forum
2016;29(5):176e82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0840470416645601.
5. European Society of Radiology. ESR) and the European federation of radiog-
rapher societies (EFRS). Patient safety in medical imaging: a joint paper of the
European society of radiology (ESR) and the European federation of radiogra-
pher societies (EFRS). Insights Imag 2019;10(1):2e17. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.radi.2019.01.009.
6. Al-Abri R, Al-Balushi A. Patient satisfaction survey as a tool toward quality
improvement. Oman Med J 2014;29(1):3e7. https://doi.org/10.205001/
omj.2014.02.
7. Cohen G. Age and health status in a patient satisfaction survey. Soc Sci Med
1996;42(7):1085e93. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00315-0.
8. Gagliardi AR, Martinez JPD, Baker GR, Moody L, Scane K, Urquhart R, et al.
Hospital capacity for patient engagement in planning and improving health
services: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Health Serv Res 2021;21(1):1e11.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06174-0.
9. Bjertnaes OA, Sjetne IS, Iversen HH. Overall patient satisfaction with hospitals:
effects of patient-reported experiences and fulfilment of expectations. BMJ Qual
Saf 2012;21(1):39e46. https://dx-doi-org.uoseresources.remotexs.xyz/10.
1136/bmjqs-2011-000137.
10. European Federation of Radiographers Societies. EFRS statement on the impor-
tance of patient engagement and the patient's voice within radiographic practice.
2021. https://api.efrs.eu/api/assets/posts/255. https://www.um.edu.mt/library/
oar/handle/123456789/93043.
11. Shinde M, Kapurkar K. Patient's satisfaction with nursing care provided in
selected areas of tertiary care hospital. Int J Sci Res 2014;3(2):150e60.
12. Arshad S, Andrabi H, Hamid S, Masooda S. Measuring patients satisfaction: a
cross sectional study to improve quality of care at a tertiary care hospital. East
Afr J Publ Health 2012;9(1):26e8.
13. Rockall AG, Justich C, Helbich T, Vilgrain V. Patient communication in radi-
ology: moving up the agenda. Eur J Radiol 2022;155(August):110464. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110464.