4.4 Article

Survey of patient perceptions towards short-term mobile medical aid for those living in a medically underserved area of Swaziland

期刊

BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
卷 15, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-015-1186-4

关键词

Short-term medical mission (STMM); Humanitarian aid; Questionnaire; Patient; Satisfaction

资金

  1. Taipei Medical University [TMU101-AE1-B68]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology [NSC 102-2511-S-038-005, MOST 104-2314-B-182A-138-, MOST 104-2410-H-038-006-SSS]
  3. Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan [CMRPG1B0132]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: An increasing number of short-term medical missions (STMMs) are being dispatched to provide humanitarian healthcare; however, extensive investigations on how recipient patients perceive STMMs are lacking. The current study evaluated the perceptions of patients toward medical services provided by a Taiwanese STMM in a resource-poor area of Swaziland. Methods: A structured questionnaire survey was completed by patients who had received medical services from the medical mission of Taipei Medical University in Swaziland in July 2014. Results: In total, 349 questionnaires were valid for the analysis. More respondents were female than male (69.6 % vs 30.4 %). The most common chief complaint was musculoskeletal problems (45.8 %), followed by respiratory symptoms (35.0 %). Most of the patients stated that their overall experience with the medical services was excellent (91.4 %). Universal patients would like to see the service provided in the future (99.7 %). Nearly 90 % of the patients were aware of how to take care of the medical problem they were diagnosed with. A majority of the patients comprehended what their medical providers said. Only a few patients did not understand what physicians said (5.2 %). Conclusion: Medical services provided by the STMM were helpful in resolving patients' problems. The data have crucial implications for evaluating overseas mobile medical aid from the viewpoint of patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据