Satisfaction of users of Psychosocial Care Centers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.3037.3223Keywords:
Patient Satisfaction, Health Services Research; Mental Health; Mental Health Services; Health Care; Health EvaluationAbstract
Objective:
evaluate the satisfaction of users with the care provided at the Psychosocial Care Centers and its association with clinical and sociodemographic factors.
Method:
this cross-sectional study was conducted with 55 users from 5 Psychosocial Care Centers. The sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were obtained through an individual structured interview. The abbreviated version of the Mental Health Services Satisfaction Scale (SATIS-BR) was used for data collection.
Results:
were descriptively analyzed and simple and multiple logistic regression models were adjusted for analysis of associations, estimating the gross and adjusted odds ratio, with the respective confidence intervals of 95%. Results: the age average of the sample was 40.1 (±12.4) years and the degree of satisfaction average was 4.56 (±0.45). Users with less education (primary school) had 5 times more chance of having less satisfaction (p<0.05). Users with frequency of intensive monitoring were 5 times more likely to have less satisfaction than users who receive monthly monitoring (p<0.05).
Conclusion:
the majority of users are satisfied with the service and factors such as low education and higher frequency of monitoring influenced the satisfaction.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
RLAE’s authorship concept is based on the substantial contribution by each of the individuals listed as authors, mainly in terms of conceiving and planning the research project, collecting or analyzing and interpreting data, writing and critical review. Indication of authors’ names under the article title is limited to six. If more, authors are listed on the online submission form under Acknowledgements. The possibility of including more than six authors will only be examined on multicenter studies, considering the explanations presented by the authors.Including names of authors whose contribution does not fit into the above criteria cannot be justified. Those names can be included in the Acknowledgements section.
Authors are fully responsible for the concepts disseminated in their manuscripts, which do not necessarily reflect the editors’ and editorial board’s opinion.
