and experience
at migrant health
centres in Turkey
satisfaction rate of 78.2% with health services. This is relatively high compared with similar studies that have evaluated services provided by a specialized unit for refugees or with sensitivity to language and cultural needs. The service with the highest satisfaction rate was psychological or social assistance (84.8%). Factors related to service and communication were significant determinants of patient satisfaction. Respondents who received explanations of their medical condition from the doctor were 8.9 times more likely to be satisfied. Respondents who felt that they had enough time with the health worker or received a comprehensive examination and respect from both doctors and nurses were more likely to be satisfied. The amount of time spent waiting to see a health worker was also a significant predictor of patient satisfaction. Some improvements in physician–patient interaction and communication are recommended to empower patients to participate in managing their treatment and overall health.
Photo coverpage: © SIHHAT Design and layout: 4PLUS4.dk Document number:
WHO/EURO:2021-2488-42244-58324
Keywords
REFUGEE
PATIENT SATISFACTION CLIENT SATISFACTION REFUGEE HEALTH
© World Health Organization 2021
Some rights reserved. This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo).
Under the terms of this licence, you may copy, redistribute and adapt the work for non- commercial purposes, provided the work is appropriately cited, as indicated below. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. If you adapt the work, then you must license your work under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If you create a translation of this work, you should add the following disclaimer along with the suggested citation: “This translation was not created by the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original English edition shall be the binding and authentic edition:
Patient satisfaction and experience at migrant health centres in Turkey. Copenhagen:
WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2021”.
Any mediation relating to disputes arising under the licence shall be conducted in accordance with the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization.
(http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules/).
Suggested citation. Patient satisfaction and experience at migrant health centres in Turkey. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2021. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
Cataloguing-in-Publication (CIP) data. CIP data are available at http://apps.who.int/iris.
Sales, rights and licensing. To purchase WHO publications, see http://apps.who.int/
bookorders. To submit requests for commercial use and queries on rights and licensing, see http://www.who.int/about/licensing.
Third-party materials. If you wish to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or images, it is your responsibility to determine whether permission is needed for that reuse and to obtain permission from the copyright holder.
The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user.
General disclaimers. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WHO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted and dashed lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement.
The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by WHO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters.
All reasonable precautions have been taken by WHO to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall WHO be liable for damages arising from its use.
and experience
at migrant health
centres in Turkey
Contents
Preface ... iv
Acknowledgements ... v
Abbreviations ... v
Executive summary ... vi
Introduction ... 1
Background ... 1
Methodology ...
3Results ... 7
Sociodemographic characteristics of participants ... 7
Access and utilization of services in MHCs ... 8
Patient experience at MHCs ... 10
Patient satisfaction ... 13
Determinants of patient satisfaction and experience ... 16
Discussion ... 19
Patient satisfaction and expectations ... 19
Factors that determine patient satisfaction in MHCs ... 20
Strengths and limitations ... 21
Patient feedback mechanisms ... 21
Recommendations ... 22
Conclusions ... 23
References ... 24
Annex 1. Patient satisfaction form ... 28
Annex 2. Patient experience by type of facility ... 33
Preface
The conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic has caused one of the world’s largest and most dynamic displacement crises, affecting millions of lives. WHO is supporting the response to the crisis through its operations in Turkey, which comprise a cross-border response from the field office in Gaziantep and a health response to refugees in Turkey, coordinated by the WHO Country Office in Ankara. In north-western Syrian Arab Republic, WHO is implementing interventions such as the delivery of vital medicines and medical supplies and providing support for the operational costs of health facilities and capacity-building of health staff. Through the Refugee Health Programme in Turkey, efforts have been made to strengthen the national health system through integrating Syrian health workers and translators, building capacity for mental health care, providing linguistic and culturally sensitive health services, and supporting home care for older refugees and those with disabilities.
Activities of the Programme are defined within the scope of the Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan 2018–2019, a broad partnership platform for over 270 development and humanitarian partners to provide coordinated support in countries bordering the Syrian Arab Republic that are heavily impacted by the influx of refugees. This platform capitalizes on the knowledge, capacities and resources of humanitarian and development actors to provide a single strategic, multisectoral and resilience-based response. Supported by several donors, WHO’s activities are complementary to the Ministry of Health-implemented SIHHAT
(Improving the health status of the Syrian population under temporary protection and related services provided by Turkish authorities) project that is funded by the European Union (EU). This project operates under the EU’s Facility for Refugees in Turkey and focuses on strengthening the provision of primary and secondary health services to Syrian migrant/refugee, building and supporting a network of migrant health centres across the country, and employing additional health personnel, including Syrian doctors and nurses.
In November 2018 the Refugee Health Programme conducted the Workshop on Refugee and Migrant Health in Turkey: Survey and Research Consultation to identify gaps in the information and evidence required for Programme development and adaptation and for informing policies on migrant health in Turkey. The Workshop brought together more than 57 national and international experts from academia, the Ministry of Health, United Nations agencies and WHO collaborating centres and led to the formulation of the Programme’s research framework. Within this framework, a series of studies was implemented in the fields of mental health, health literacy, women and child health, health workforce, and noncommunicable diseases. This study, Patient satisfaction and experience at migrant health centres in Turkey, is one of the studies implemented within the Refugee Health Programme’s research framework. It was implemented within the scope of the Improved access to health services for Syrian refugees in Turkey project with funding from the EU Regional Trust Fund in Response to the Syrian Crisis.
Acknowledgements
The WHO Health Emergencies team in Turkey would like to thank all stakeholders who contributed to the implementation of this study. Special thanks go to Kanuni Keklik and Özlem Kahraman Tunay of the Migration Health Department, Ministry of Health of the Republic of Turkey, and to Mr Inanc Sogut and Prof. Meliksah Ertem of the SIHHAT project, Ministry of Health of the Republic of Turkey. Thanks also go to Omur Cinar Elci, Melda Keçik, Çetin Doğan Dikmen, Pelin Cebeci, Elif Göksu, Nurtaç Kavukcu, Kadriye Küçükbalci, Mustafa Bahadir Sucakli and Altin Malaj of the WHO
Country Office in Turkey and to Oguzhan Akyildirim, Pinar Sağlik and Alev Yucel of TANDANS Data Science Consulting for their valuable contributions to designing, data collection, data analysis and the overall implementation of the study.
Authors
The principal authors of this report are Hanna Radysh and Monica Zikusooka, WHO Country Office in Turkey, WHO Regional Office for Europe.
Abbreviations
3RP Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan AOR adjusted odds ratio
CAHPS Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems
CI confidence interval EU European Union MHC migrant health centre MHTC migrant health training centre
NHS National Health Service (United Kingdom)
OR odds ratio
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SIHHAT Improving the health status of the Syrian
population under temporary protection and related services provided by Turkish authorities (project) UHC universal health coverage
This document was produced with the financial assistance of the European Union.
The views expressed herein can in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the European Union.
Executive summary
Universal health coverage (UHC) is a global priority and the basis for achieving other health-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (1). At the core of several international commitments, including the United Nations Global Compact on Refugees (2) and the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (3), is UHC, which was endorsed by the Sixty-first World Health Assembly in resolution WHA61.17 on the health of migrants in 2008 (4). In line with these international commitments, Turkey has taken steps to ensure access to health for its estimated 3.6 million Syrian refugees.
UHC should be embedded in a strong primary health- care system offering people-centred health services. For the Syrian refugee population in Turkey, this is pursued through a network of migrant health centres (MHCs) that provide cultural and linguistically sensitive services.
This study was undertaken to assess patient experience and satisfaction with services provided in MHCs, to identify the determinants of patient satisfaction and potential areas to improve patient satisfaction or dimensions of the patient experience.
A patient survey was conducted between November 2019 and March 2020. Data was collected through face- to-face interviews using a quantitative questionnaire developed by WHO in the Yemen emergency response.
The tool was adopted for this study because of its suitability to the context of the health humanitarian response in Turkey. Prior to implementation, the tool was adapted to the Syrian Arabic dialect and pre-tested. In all, 4548 patients and caregivers who received services from MHCs, extended MHCs and migrant health training centres (MHTCs) in 16 provinces participated in the study
More than 70% of respondents had arrived in Turkey after 2013, and 27.3% had arrived after 2016. Nearly two thirds (64.5%) of respondents were women. Most respondents (81.5%) were aged under 45 years, and almost a quarter of the respondents (23.7%) were illiterate. Most respondents had visited the MHC at least twice in the previous three months, and the majority had visited the MHC for a general consultation
When asked about the overall level of satisfaction with the health services that they had received at the MHC, 78.2% of all respondents said they were satisfied:
80.1% of men and 77.2% of women. Compared with the other age groups, significantly more respondents aged 60 years and over were satisfied with the health services that they had received at the MHC (P < 0.001).
Higher proportions of respondents with no education and those who had arrived in Turkey in or before 2013 were satisfied compared with the other subgroups.
Respondents had the highest level of satisfaction with psychological or social assistance services (84.8%), whereas lowest levels of satisfaction were for emergency services (17.6%) and dental services (8.3%).
However, most respondents (89.4%) were unaware of the existence of any feedback or complaint mechanism.
Although both gender and age had a significant effect on patient satisfaction, when other factors were considered none of the patient characteristics had a significant influence on patient satisfaction. All communication and quality of service-related variables were significant predictors of patient satisfaction when all the other factors were controlled for. However, the type of MHC was not a significant predictor of patient satisfaction. The strongest service-related predictors of satisfaction were having sufficient length of consultation (adjusted odds ratios (AOR): 2.37; 95%
confidence interval (CI): 1.76–3.21; P < 0.000), receiving a comprehensive examination (AOR: 2.01; 95% CI:
1.49–2.70; P < 0.000) and being treated with respect by the nurse (AOR: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.52–2.85; P < 0.000).
Receiving an explanation of the medical condition from the doctor was the strongest predictor of patient satisfaction among communication-related variables (AOR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.48–2.53; P < 0.000).
Although most patients were satisfied with services in MHCs, improvements in physician–patient interactions and communication are recommended to empower patients to participate in managing their treatment and overall health. In particular, physicians should inform patients about medicine side-effects and danger signs and consultation times should be increased, perhaps by reducing the patient-to-physician ratio. Reducing waiting
times could also improve patient satisfaction. This study provides evidence that greater promotion of MHC services among refugee communities could increase their utilization and reduce the burden on secondary care facilities.
Recommendations are as follows.
•
Improving patient experiences related to consultation time, waiting time and quality of physician–patient communication could improve satisfaction with MHCs. In addition, examining and addressing the causes of dissatisfaction for services that had a lower level of satisfaction would help to improve patient satisfaction.•
Implement a targeted campaign to increase the use of MHC services, especially as the Ministry of Health plans to expand the MHC network. The high level of patient satisfaction established in this study could be useful for the campaign.•
With increased service utilization in MHCs, an objective estimation of the patient-to-physician ratio based on patient records is needed to determine physician workload and its potential impact on the quality of services and patient satisfaction.•
Support physicians in MHCs to improve their communication skills. Specific emphasis on communicating with patients about medicines would cover the observed gap in patient satisfaction while improving the rational use of medicines.•
MHCs should consider implementing and promoting a variety of feedback and complaint mechanisms that can be safely accessed and used by a diverse population to gather feedback to improve services. These may include, but are not limited to, complaint boxes and toll-free telephones.Introduction
UHC is a global priority and the basis for achieving other health-related SDGs (1). Under UHC, all people have access to health services when they need them, wherever they are and without financial hardship. UHC provision for refugees and migrants is the subject of several international commitments on human rights, including the United Nations Global Compact on Refugees (2) and the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (3), and was endorsed by the Sixty-first World Health Assembly in resolution WHA61.17 on the health of migrants in 2008 (4). Turkey currently hosts an estimated 3.6 million Syrians, of whom 23% are women of reproductive age and 14%
are children aged 0–4 years (5). Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection provides emergency and temporary protection under Article 91 for foreigners in Turkey who have been forced to leave their country and cannot return (6). Syrian refugees in Turkey are classified as Syrians under temporary protection. In line with these international commitments, the country has taken steps to ensure access to health for its large refugee population.
Globally, refugees and migrants often face challenges in accessing health care, including language and cultural differences (7–9), low health literacy (7,10), difficulties in understanding the health system (8), legal status, lack of awareness of their health rights (11) and financial limitations (7). The Government of Turkey has sought to address such challenges by expanding the capacity of its health system and developing legislation to ensure access to health care for refugees.
According to WHO, UHC should be embedded in a strong primary health-care system offering people-centred health services that “consciously adopts the perspectives of individuals, families and communities, and sees them as participants as well as beneficiaries of trusted health systems that respond to their needs and preferences in humane and holistic ways” (9). People-centred health services focus on individuals rather than diseases, coordinate care around people’s needs while respecting their preferences, and enable people to participate in managing their own health affairs. Further, providing integrated people-centred services is critical to achieving UHC goals, especially for disadvantaged populations. Assessments of patient experience and satisfaction with health services provide insight into the patient-centredness of services.
Background
Refugee access to health care in Turkey
In 2015 the Government of Turkey adopted a regulation to allow Syrians registered as under temporary protection access to free emergency medical treatment and to preventive and primary health services (10). In addition to the existing primary health facilities, a network of MHCs was later introduced to provide culturally sensitive health services in their own language. The Government’s response to refugee health needs is complemented by interventions supported through the SIHHAT project, with the main objective to increase national health system capacity to provide high-quality, free-of-charge health services to Syrians under temporary protection in Turkey (10). The SIHHAT project is implemented in 29 provinces with a high population density of Syrian refugees. As of August 2020, SIHHAT had 175 MHCs that have provided 13 million primary health-care consultations (10). The health services provided through MHCs in Turkey are free of charge for registered Syrians and are expected to meet national equity standards.
Overall, a response to the needs of Syrians under temporary protection in Turkey is annually articulated in the Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan (3RP) with the health sector focusing on building resilience of the health system (12).
In contributing to the 3RP objectives, WHO is implementing a refugee health programme with activities that include capacity-building for Syrian health workers, provision of quality people-centred health services for refugees, support for mental and psychosocial needs, and coordination of the Health Working Group.
MHC mechanism
Primary health care is the basis to achieving UHC and the SDGs (13). In Turkey, primary health care is provided through community health centres and family health centres. As part of the community health centre network, the Government of Turkey established MHCs under the SIHHAT project to meet the health needs of the Syrian population in Turkey. The MHC mechanism was planned and implemented based on the organization of primary health services in Turkey; the first MHCs were established in August 2015. The mechanism includes MHCs (or standard MHCs), extended MHCs and MHTCs. MHCs comprise several refugee health units, with each consisting of a physician and nurse pair. Extended MHCs provide additional services, including internal medicine, paediatric, obstetrics and gynaecology, oral and dental health, psychosocial support, and simple imaging and laboratory services. There are also seven MHTCs that, in addition to providing all of the services of extended MHCs, have training facilities for health workers and are jointly managed by the Ministry of Health and WHO. MHCs mainly provide services to Syrian refugees but, like all health-care facilities in Turkey, provide communicable disease prevention services (such as vaccination) and emergency health services to all people in need, regardless of nationality and registration status. Most health service providers in MHCs are Syrian nationals. Before being employed in MHCs, they are trained and oriented to work in the Turkish health-care system through a tailored adaptation training programme implemented by WHO in collaboration with the Ministry of Health. The adaptation training is delivered in MHTCs located in seven provinces:
Ankara, Gaziantep, Hatay, Istanbul, Izmir, Mersin and Şanlıurfa. Through this action, the Ministry of Health and WHO aim to fill a human resources gap in the delivery of primary health services to Syrian refugees in order to increase access to quality and equitable health care for all. Up to March 2020, WHO and the Ministry of Health had trained 638 physicians, 806 nurses, 927 translators and 337 auxiliary staff who were currently providing services in 178 MHCs located in 29 provinces, and over 1 270 000 Syrian refugees had received health services in MHCs.
Patient experience and satisfaction
Understanding patient experience and satisfaction with health services is important for monitoring and improving the quality of care. Assessments of patient satisfaction also give patients the opportunity to participate in tailoring health-care provision to their needs, which is a core principle of people-centred health services. Although definitions/
concepts of patient satisfaction vary, examining patients’ views on health care and which attributes they value most can provide insights to improve the quality of care and inform strategic decision-making (14,15). In addition, satisfied patients are more likely to adhere to treatment plans, which increases the chance of good health outcomes, and to have fewer diagnostic tests and referrals, which increases the efficiency of care (14,16). Satisfied patients are also likely to return or recommend the services they have received to others, thereby helping to improve service utilization (17).
Studies on people-centred care and patient satisfaction have produced a wide body of evidence and analytical tools (18–22). For refugees, migrants and asylum seekers, high levels of patient satisfaction were found when health services were provided in specialized units or delivered with language and cultural sensitivity (18–21). Assessments have shown that multiple factors related to the health worker influence patient satisfaction, including technical expertise, interpersonal care (e.g. communication), physical environment, access (i.e. accessibility, availability and cost), organizational characteristics, continuity of care, treatment outcome, and length of consultation with the doctor (14,22). In addition, patient characteristics such as age, gender, education, socioeconomic status, marital status, race, religion, geographical characteristics, frequency of visits, length of stay in Turkey, health status, personality and expectations were also found to influence patient satisfaction, but with inconsistent strength and direction of effect (22). Although patient satisfaction is a common outcome measure in health care assessments, it may be influenced by patients’ expectations as much as by the quality of the care provided. That is, the match between patient
expectations and what care is provided also influences patient satisfaction (18–25).
Within the humanitarian context, assessing the satisfaction of patients who receive services from MHCs is critical for accountability to the people most affected by the Syrian conflict. Accountability demands that actions to help people in need are driven by the needs, desires and capacities of the people affected and implemented in a respectful way. In this regard, the humanitarian sector has committed to giving affected populations the opportunity to provide feedback on the goods and services they have received through humanitarian actions (25,26).
A SIHHAT baseline survey on health needs of Syrian refugees in Turkey assessed their utilization and satisfaction with health services. Of the 869 respondents, 88% had accessed services from state/university hospitals, whereas only 29.5% had accessed services from MHCs. In all, 72% of those who had received services from hospitals were satisfied, compared with 65% of those who had attended MHCs. The main reasons given for satisfaction were the availability of medicine, quality of treatment and quality of nursing; in contrast, the main reasons given for dissatisfaction were lack of good treatment and difficulty in communicating owing to a lack of interpreters. Although this information is important for improving access, utilization and satisfaction with health services for Syrian refugees, it may have limited applicability to MHCs because of the small proportion of respondents who had used MHC services. However, the study provides a benchmark for monitoring improvements in MHCs. The present patient satisfaction survey included a larger patient sample and collected data in MHCs to ensure that respondents had recent experience of receiving MHC services.
Study aims and objectives
Understanding the level of patient satisfaction in MHCs is useful to ensure a people-centred approach to health service delivery. Although MHCs have been operational since 2015, evidence is lacking on patient experience and satisfaction with services from a representative sample of users. This study was undertaken to collect evidence and beneficiary feedback on services received and their expectations to improve the humanitarian response. The objectives were to:
•
assess patient experience and satisfaction level with services provided in MHCs in Turkey;•
identify the determinants of patient satisfaction; and•
identify potential areas to improve the quality of care in terms of patient satisfaction or dimensions of the patient experience.Methodology
A patient survey was conducted between November 2019 and March 2020. Participants were patients and caregivers who received services from MHCs, extended MHCs and MHTCs in 16 provinces (Table 1).
Study design and population
This cross-sectional survey targeted patients attending MHCs with more than 10 refugee health units in 16 Turkish provinces. Provinces with the highest number of patient consultations were selected to enable representative sampling of patients receiving services from MHCs. A proportional stratified sampling approach was followed to estimate the required sample size based on the number of total patient consultations in each province from 2015 until March 2019. The sample size was estimated using WinPepi (version 11.65) with a 95% CI, 0.05 error margin and 20% loss to follow-up. The final sample size was estimated at 4460 individuals, which was distributed proportionally between the 16 provinces and three types of MHC. Table 1 shows the sample distribution by province and type of MHC.
Table 1. Sample distribution by province and type of MHC
Province Sample estimation Final study
population Refugee health units (n) Patients interviewed (n)
MHCs E-MHCs MHTCs MHCs E-MHCs MHTCs
Adana 5 7 0 150 210 0 353
Ankara 1 2 1 65 130 65 202
Bursa 4 3 0 120 90 0 224
Gaziantep 3 2 1 150 100 50 451
Hatay 6 4 1 450 300 75 759
Istanbul 7 8 1 210 240 30 566
Izmir 2 1 1 116 58 58 197
Kahramanmaraş 4 5 0 120 150 0 317
Kayseri 2 2 0 60 60 0 100
Kilis 1 9 0 30 270 0 207
Konya 2 3 0 60 90 0 169
Malatya 1 1 0 30 30 0 81
Mardin 1 0 0 37 0 0 90
Mersin 3 2 1 93 62 31 224
Osmaniye 1 4 0 30 120 0 140
Şanlıurfa 4 4 1 232 230 58 468
Total sample 47 57 7 1953 2140 367 4548
4460 E-MHC: extended MHC.
Participants were recruited to the study if they were adult patients (aged > 18 years) or an immediate caregiver of a patient (child, spouse, elderly) receiving health services from the MHC on the day of the survey.
Participants were recruited in MHC reception areas on normal working days at an interval calculated from the average daily patient load of the facility. Interviewers identified potential participants, gave them detailed information about the study and confirmed that they met the inclusion criteria before inviting them to participate. Those who agreed were interviewed in areas that ensured privacy for the respondent. Of the 4665 people who met the recruitment criteria and were asked for interview, 117 refused; therefore, 4548 participants were included in the study.
Data collection
Data was collected through face-to-face interviews using a quantitative questionnaire (Annex 1). Tools used in previous studies to assess patient satisfaction in different contexts include the National Health Service (NHS) Patient Reported Outcome Measures (27) and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality standard on patient experience in adult NHS services (28) (United Kingdom); the Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire (29) and the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Outpatient and Ambulatory Surgery Survey (30) and CAHPS Hospital Survey (31) (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality) and a patient satisfaction tool used by WHO in the Yemen emergency (unpublished). The latter was used for this study because of its suitability to the context: it was designed and applied in a humanitarian setting. The questionnaire also addressed the need for accountability to the affected population. It included questions on the accessibility of health-care facilities (including distance from home, physical barriers, waiting time and out-of-pocket costs), overall satisfaction with the health service and the health worker–patient relationship. The questionnaire was pre-tested in a MHC in Altındağ, Ankara to ensure clarity of meaning of translated questions, questionnaire flow, content and language suitability. Following this, minor language adaptations were made to suit the Syrian Arabic dialect.
Prior to commencing data collection, interviewers received training from WHO, the Ministry of Health and Tandans Data Science Consulting.1 Data was collected in Arabic; all interviewers spoke Arabic as a first language. Interviewers used an electronic version of the questionnaire in KoBoToolbox (32) to collect data from interviews conducted in December 2019 and January 2020.
Study variables
Based on a literature review and the context of Syrian refugees in Turkey, study variables were identified and categorized into four clusters:
•
patient characteristics: age, gender, education and year of arrival in Turkey;•
accessibility of health services: taken as time taken to reach the MHC;•
communication: health worker explains medical tests, doctor explains medical condition, health worker explains the danger signs; and•
quality of service: health worker spends enough time with the patient, health worker carries out a comprehensive examination, health worker treats me with respect, waiting time and type of MHC.Data cleaning and analysis
Data cleaning was done to identify and resolve inconsistencies and ensure completeness. A total of 15 incomplete records were removed because answers were missing for more than 60% of the questions, especially those related to satisfaction statements. Records with entry errors that could be corrected based on other entries were corrected, whereas those with errors that could not be corrected were removed. Further, responses to multiple choice questions that had the “other” option were recoded into new categories during the analysis.
Information on variables in the communication and service clusters was collected on a five-point scale (strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, strongly agree) and re-categorized into two for analysis: the first three responses were categorized as “disagree” and the last two as “agree”. Patient responses for the statement
“Overall, the health services I have been receiving are satisfactory” were also collected on a five-point scale (shown above) and re-categorized as two (disagree—unsatisfied) and (agree–satisfied) for analysis.
Descriptive analyses were conducted to describe the distribution of sociodemographic characteristics and other study variables. Patient experiences and satisfaction were analysed both overall and for the different facility types. Logistic
1 An independent consultancy based in Ankara.
regression was conducted to identify factors that influenced patient satisfaction. To fit the logistic regression models, variables with a significant influence on patient satisfaction (P < 0.05) were included, and AORs were calculated with 95% CIs. In the first model fitted, only patient characteristics (age, gender, education, year of arrival in Turkey) were adjusted, whereas in the second model all variables were adjusted by including them in the model. Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 25.
Results
Sociodemographic characteristics of participants
More than 70% of participants had arrived in Turkey after 2013, and 27.3% had arrived after 2016 (Table 2). The average household size was 5.9 people. Nearly two thirds (64.5%) of respondents were women. Most participants (81.5%) were aged under 45 years. Almost a quarter of the respondents (23.7%) were illiterate (not able to read and write) and nearly half (48.4%) had completed primary education only.
Table 2. Sociodemographic characteristics of respondents
Characteristic Number (n) Percentage (%)
Gender (n = 4533) Men
Women
1608 2925
35.5 64.5 Age, years (n = 4533)
18–29 30–44 45–59 60 and above
1794 1900 677 162
39.6 41.9 14.9 3.6 Education level (n = 4505)
No education
Completed primary education Completed secondary education University degree/equivalent or higher
1069 2180 762 494
23.7 48.4 16.9 11.0 Employment status (n = 4522)
Working Not working
1080 3442
23.9 76.1 Year of migration (n = 4528)
≤ 2013 2014 2015
≥ 2016
1205 1057 1028 1238
26.6 23.3 22.7 27.3
Overall, about a quarter of respondents (23.9%) were currently employed, but the proportion was higher for men than for women (52.3% vs 8.2%). Regarding employment sectors, half of employed respondents (50.5%) were working in sales and services, 13.8% in agriculture and 12.4% in teaching. Most male respondents were employed in the sales and services sector (57.6%), and similar proportions of female respondents were working in the teaching (28.7%), sales and services (25.4%), and agricultural (23.8%) sectors.
Access and utilization of services in MHCs
Most respondents had visited the MHC without obtaining any information about the services available in MHCs.
Only 6.2% had been referred to the MHC; of theses, most (61.8%) had been referred from another MHC (Table 3). The Turkish Red Crescent was another important source of information about MHCs.
Table 3. Access to health facilities
Dimension Standard MHC Extended MHC MHTC Total
n % n % n % n %
Did you have information about this health facility before you visited?
Yes No
114 1931
5.6 94.4
130 1566
7.7 92.3
39 699
5.3 94.7
283 4196
6.3 93.7 If so, where did you get the information from?
Another MHC Turkish Red Crescent Other outreach team Other _____
61 15 8 30
53.5 13.2 7.0 26.3
97 19 3 11
74.6 14.6 2.3 8.5
17 7 7 8
43.6 17.9 17.9 20.5
175 41 18 49
61.8 14.5 6.4 17.3 In the last 3 months, how many times have
you/the patient visited this health facility?
1 2 3
> 3
430 613 473 549
20.8 29.7 22.9 26.6
300 571 406 431
17.6 33.4 23.8 25.2
141 303 159 157
18.6 39.9 20.9 20.7
871 1487 1038 1137
19.2 32.8 22.9 25.1 How did you get to the facility today?
Walked
Private transport or taxi Public transport Other means
1316 301 408 39
63.8 14.6 19.8 1.9
942 304 400 62
55.2 17.8 23.4 3.6
342 151 256 11
45.0 19.9 33.7 1.4
2600 756 1064 112
57.4 16.7 23.5 2.5 How long did it take you to get here today from
your home?
0–15 minutes 16–30 minutes 31–45 minutes
> 45 minutes
1290 605 89 80
62.5 29.3 4.3 3.9
1001 556 78 69
58.7 32.6 4.6 4.0
365 301 50 43
48.1 39.7 6.6 5.7
2656 1462 217 192
58.7 32.3 4.8 4.2 How much did it cost you/the patient to get
here today (one way)?
< 5 TL 5–10 TL
≥ 10 TL
308 154 130
52.0 26.0 22.0
320 137 118
55.7 23.8 20.5
221 72 71
60.7 19.8 19.5
849 363 319
55.5 23.7 20.8 Once you arrived at the health facility, how long
did you wait to be seen by a health worker?
< 20 minutes 21–60 minutes 61–90 minutes
> 90 minutes
1366 519 40 136
66.3 25.2 1.9 6.6
978 564 45 119
57.3 33.1 2.6 7.0
428 277 24 31
56.3 36.4 3.2 4.1
2772 1360 109 286
61.2 30.0 2.4 6.3
Most respondents had visited the MHC at least twice in the previous three months. Respondents aged 45–59 years had visited the MHC slightly more frequently than other age groups. More than half had walked to the MHC on the day of the interview (57.4%; Table 3). Of those who had used some other means of transport, most (55.5%) had paid transportation costs of less than 5 Turkish lira. Irrespective of the means of transport, the average time taken to reach the MHC was 19.3 minutes.
Almost one fifth of the respondents had visited the MHC to consult a specialist physician (19.2%). About two thirds of respondents (63.7%) had attended the MHC for one service, 29.3% had attended for two services and 6.9% for more than two services (Table 4). Most respondents had visited the MHC for a general consultation, followed by investigation – diagnostic tests, vaccination, and pregnancy-related (pregnancy or prenatal care) and infant-care services (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Overall service utilization in MHCs
Table 4. Service utilization by type of MHC
Reason/s for this visit Standard MHC Extended MHC MHTC
n % n % n %
Pregnancy-related consultation 64 3.1 122 7.1 46 6.1
Infant consultation (postnatal care) 70 3.4 51 3.0 51 6.7
Vaccination 447 21.6 294 17.2 178 23.4
General consultation 1409 68.2 1183 69.3 480 63.2
Dental care 22 1.1 21 1.2 5 0.7
Family planning 54 2.6 50 2.9 41 5.4
Investigation – diagnostic tests 713 34.5 680 39.8 290 38.2
Emergency 46 2.2 64 3.7 25 3.3
Wound care 17 0.8 7 0.4 2 0.3
Psychological or social assistance 8 0.4 20 1.2 6 0.8
Medical certificate 32 1.5 47 2.8 11 1.4
Other 0 0.0 2 0.1 0 0.0
Total 2882 100 2541 100 1135 100
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Other Wound care Psychological/social assistanceMedical cer�ficateEmergency careDental care Family planningInfant care Pregnancy-related consulta�on Vaccina�on Inves�ga�on – diagnos�c testsGeneral consulta�on
Respondents
Slightly more than half of the respondents (56.3%) had visited the MHC to obtain health services for themselves, 34.2% to obtain health services for their children and 8.0% to obtain health services for their spouse.
More than half (54.1%) of the respondents had attended the MHC within a day of needing health care (Fig. 2). Among those who delayed seeking health care by one day or more, the main reason was that they thought that they (or the patient) was not sick enough and would get better on their own (67.1%; Fig. 3).
Fig. 2. Time to seek care
Fig. 3. Reasons for delayed care seeking
Patient experience at MHCs
Participants were asked about their experiences at the health facility regarding services received and waiting time;
interaction with physicians and nurses, receiving medication, their willingness to recommend services and intention to return. Annex 2 presents the responses by type of health facility.
Services received and waiting time
On the day of the survey, 88.5% of respondents thought that they had fully received the health service that they needed at the MHC, and very few thought that they had partially received (6.9%) or not received (4.5%) the health service that they needed. The average waiting time to be seen by a health worker was 29.9 minutes (Table 3). Most respondents felt that they had not had to wait long to see the doctor (71.5%), but almost 20% disagreed (Fig. 4).
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
< 1 1–3 4–7 8–30 > 30
Percentage (%)
Time (days)
Fig 3
Fig 4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Worried about the cost of care Worried about the safety of travelling to care Didn’t think the health facility would be able to help
due to lack of doctors, medicines or supplies Appointment Other Didn’t think I was sick enough or thought the problem would getter better on its own
Percentage (%)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
The doctor treats me with respect The nurse treats me with respect I understand the diagnosis from doctors at MHCs The doctor spends enough time with me to answer all my questions The doctor spends enough time with me to explain my medical condition The doctor is careful to check everything when examining me I trust the doctor’s skills at the MHC I trust the nurse’s skills at the MHC The doctor explains the reason for medical tests When I come to the MHC, I don’t have to wait long to see a doctor The doctor told me about danger signals related to my diagnosis to look out for at home
Percentage (%) Agree Neutral Disagree
© SIHHAT
Physician–patient interaction and communication
Over 80% of the respondents said that the doctors and nurses had treated them with respect (Fig. 4). A similar proportion (80.0%) thought that the doctor had taken care to examined them fully and taken enough time to explain the medical condition and answer their questions. Nevertheless, almost 20% were not sure or disagreed that the doctor had comprehensively examined them or spent enough time with them. In all, 10% of respondents thought the doctor had not spent long enough examining them or explaining their medical condition. Slightly over 50% had been told about danger signs to look out for at home.
Fig. 4. Patient experience in MHCs
Medicines
Most respondents had been prescribed medicine on the day of the survey (87.0%) and 81% considered that the doctor had explained the medication use either fully or partially. Most said that they understood the purpose of the treatment and the prescribed medicines (79.5%; Fig. 5). In all, 79.4% said that they understood how to use the medicines that they had been prescribed that day; however, 12% did not understand how to use the medicines and 8.6% were not sure. Less than 50% of the respondents said that they had been informed about medication side-effects.
Fig. 5. Use of medicines
Willingness to recommend services and intention to return
Based on their experience at the MHC, 86.1% of respondents said that they would return to the facility if they needed another health service, and 83.7% said that they would recommend the health facility to other people (Fig. 6). Only 11.6% of respondents said that they would go to a private practice for further consultation after visiting the MHC.
Fig 4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Worried about the cost of care Worried about the safety of travelling to care Didn’t think the health facility would be able to help
due to lack of doctors, medicines or supplies Appointment Other
Percentage (%)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
The doctor treats me with respect The nurse treats me with respect I understand the diagnosis from doctors at MHCs The doctor spends enough time with me to answer all my questions The doctor spends enough time with me to explain my medical condition The doctor is careful to check everything when examining me I trust the doctor’s skills at the MHC I trust the nurse’s skills at the MHC The doctor explains the reason for medical tests When I come to the MHC, I don’t have to wait long to see
a doctor The doctor told me about danger signals related to my diagnosis to look out for at home
Percentage (%) Agree Neutral Disagree
Fig 5
Fig 6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 I understand the purpose of the treatment and
prescribed medicines I understand how to use the medicines that were prescribed to me today I was informed about medication side-effects
Percentage (%) Agree Neutral Disagree
0 20 40 60 80 100
Based on my experience here, I will recommend this health facility to other people Based on my experience here, I will return to this health facility for a service in the future if needed
Percentage (%) Agree Neutral Disagree
Patient satisfaction and experience at migrant health centres in Turkey 13
Fig. 6. Intention to return and recommendation
Patient satisfaction
When asked about their overall level of satisfaction with the health services that they had received at the MHC, 78.2%
of all respondents said that they were satisfied: 80.1% of men and 77.2% of women (Table 5). Compared with the other age groups, significantly more respondents aged 60 years and over were satisfied with the health services that they had received at the MHC (P < 0.001). Higher proportions of respondents with no education and those who had arrived in Turkey in or before 2013 were satisfied compared with the other subgroups.
Table 5. Patient satisfaction with the MHC services, by demographic characteristic
Characteristic Satisfieda Neutral Dissatisfieda P valueb
n % n % n %
Gender Men Women
1286 2257
80.1 77.2
240 533
14.9 18.2
80 132
5.0 4.5
0.017 Age, years
18–29 30–44 45–59
≥ 60
1369 1475 557 142
76.4 77.7 82.4 87.7
337 334 87 15
18.8 17.6 12.9 9.3
86 89 32 5
4.8 4.7 4.7 3.1
0.002
Education level No education Completed primary Completed secondary
University degree/equivalent or higher
888 1697 583 359
83.1 78.0 76.6 72.8
144 382 129 108
13.5 17.5 17.0 21.9
37 98 49 26
3.5 4.5 6.4 5.3
< 0.001
Year of arrival in Turkey
≤ 2013 2014 2015
≥ 2016
976 831 766 967
81.0 78.8 74.5 78.2
179 176 195 221
14.9 16.7 19.0 17.9
50 47 67 48
4.1 4.5 6.5 3.9
0.004
Employment status Employed Unemployed
827 2710
76.7 78.8
188 581
17.4 16.9
63 148
5.8 4.3
0.092
a Satisfied: agreed with the questionnaire statement; dissatisfied: disagreed with the questionnaire statement.
b Pearson’s chi-squared test.
Fig 6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 I understand the purpose of the treatment and
prescribed medicines I understand how to use the medicines that were prescribed to me today
Percentage (%) Agree Neutral Disagree
0 20 40 60 80 100
Based on my experience here, I will recommend this health facility to other people Based on my experience here, I will return to this health facility for a service in the future if needed
Percentage (%) Agree Neutral Disagree
© SIHHAT
Overall satisfaction by type of MHC
Although over 70% of all respondents were satisfied with the health services they had received, some variations were noted between the type of MHC (Fig. 7). A significantly higher proportion of respondents was satisfied with standard MHCs (80.0%) than with extended MHCs (79.6%) and MHTCs (70.4%; P < 0.001).2
Fig. 7. Overall satisfaction from the services received by type of facility
Overall satisfaction by type of health service
The overall level of satisfaction with services received at MHCs was then stratified by type of health service (Fig. 8).
Respondents had the highest level of satisfaction with psychological or social assistance services (84.8%), followed by medical certificate services (82.2%) and wound care (80.8%). The lowest levels of satisfaction were for emergency services (17.6%) and dental services (8.3%), followed by reproductive health and child-care services (6.4%)
Fig. 8. Overall satisfaction by type of services received
2 Based on Pearson’s chi-squared test.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Standard MHC Extended MHC MHTC
Percentage (%)
Agree (satisfied) Neutral Disagree (dissatisfied)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Emergency care Dental care Reproductive health and child care Vaccination Investigation – diagnostic tests General consultation for feeling sick Wound care Medical certificate Psychological/social assistance
Percentage (%) Agree (satisfied) Neutral Disagree (dissatisfied)
Patient satisfaction feedback mechanism
Most respondents (89.4%) were unaware of the existence of any feedback or complaint mechanism (Fig. 9).
Fig. 9. Patient awareness of a feedback mechanism
Determinants of patient satisfaction and experience
Logistic regressions models were used to examine patient characteristics and factors related to MHC services (accessibility, communication and service quality) that might influence patient satisfaction.
Patient characteristics
Both gender and age had a significant effect on patient satisfaction (Table 6). In simple logistic regression comparisons, the following groups were more likely to be satisfied with the health services they had received at MHCs: women, older people, people with lower education levels and people who had arrived in Turkey before 2013.
However, none of the patient characteristics were found to significantly influence patient satisfaction in the multiple regression analysis (i.e. when other factors were added).
Table 6. Logistic regression analysis of patient characteristics that might influence patient satisfaction
Category OR 95% CI P value
Gender (Ref: women)
Men 0.85 0.73–0.98 0.027
Age, years (Ref: 18–29) 30–44
45–59
≥ 60
1.08 1.45 2.19
0.92–1.26 1.15–1.81 1.36–3.55
0.341 0.001 0.001 Education level (Ref: no education)
Completed primary Completed secondary
University degree/equivalent or higher
0.72 0.67 0.55
0.60–0.87 0.53–0.84 0.42–0.71
0.001 0.001 0.000 Year of arrival in Turkey (Ref: ≤ 2013)
2014 2015
≥ 2016
0.87 0.69 0.84
0.71–1.08 0.56–0.84 0.69–1.03
0.202 0.000 0.091 OR: odds ratio.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Standard MHC Extended MHC MHTC Total
Percentage (%)
Pa�ents who are aware of the feedback mechanism Pa�ents who are not aware of the feedback mechanism
Accessibility
Accessibility was measured as the time taken for patients to reach a health facility. Using this measure, the
accessibility of health services was significantly associated with patient satisfaction. Respondents with longer journey times to reach the health facility were less satisfied (P < 0.05). However, when patient characteristics were controlled for in multiple logistic regression analysis, accessibility ceased to be a significant factor (Table 7).
Communication
Patient experiences in receiving health information were used to assess communication between the health worker and patient. Respondents who felt that medical tests, medical condition, medication side-effects and danger signs related to their health condition to look out for at home had been explained were more likely to be satisfied than those who did not (P < 0.0001). Respondents who had received explanations about their medical condition from the doctor were 8.9 times more likely to be satisfied than those who had not (odds ratio (OR): 8.93; 95% CI: 7.56–10.56;
P < 0.000). All communication variables remained significant predictors of patient satisfaction when all the other factors were controlled for. Receiving an explanation of the medical condition from the doctor was the strongest predictor of patient satisfaction in this category (AOR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.48–2.53; P < 0.000).
Quality of service
The influence of quality of service on patient satisfaction was assessed using the participants’ assessment of length of time spent with the health worker, adequacy of the examination, and level of perceived respect from doctors and nurses, along with the waiting time to see a health worker (from arrival at the facility) and type of MHC.
Respondents who felt that they spent enough time with the health worker, received a comprehensive examination and thought that they were treated with respect by both doctors and nurses were more likely to be satisfied (P < 0.05). The length of waiting time was also a significant predictor of patient satisfaction (P < 0.000). Respondents who received services from extended MHCs and MHTCs were less likely to be satisfied than those who received services from standard MHCs. However, when patient characteristics and other factors were controlled for, the type of MHC was not a significant predictor of patient satisfaction. Multiple logistic regression in the fully adjusted model showed that all service-related variables except for type of MHC were significant predictors of patient satisfaction. The strongest predictors of satisfaction were having a sufficient consultation time (AOR: 2.37; 95% CI: 1.76–3.21; P < 0.000), receiving a comprehensive examination (AOR: 2.01; 95% CI: 1.49–2.70; P < 0.000) and being treated with respect by the nurse (AOR: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.52–2.85; P < 0.000).
18 Patient satisfaction and experience at migrant health centres in Turkey Table 7. Multiple logistic regression analysis of MHC characteristics that might influence patient satisfaction Variable/subvariableUnadjustedAdjustedaAdjusted OR95% CIP valueAOR95% CIP valueAOR95% CI Accessibility Time to reach MHC, minutes (Ref: 0–15) 16–30 31–45 > 45
0.71 0.49 0.66
0.60–0.82 0.36–0.66 0.47–0.93
0.0000 0.0000 0.0170
0.70 0.50 0.66
0.60–0.82 0.37–0.68 0.47–0.94
0.000 0.000 0.020
0.80 0.54 0.92
0.62–1.02 0.33–0.88 0.53–1.61 Communication The health worker explained the reason for medical tests (Ref: disagree)7.536.36–8.910.0007.396.24–8.770.0001.931.48–2.53 The doctor spent time explaining my medical condition (Ref: disagree)8.937.56–10.560.0008.887.50–10.520.0001.71.24–2.31 Medication side-effects were explained (Ref: disagree)3.823.16–4.610.0003.813.15–4.610.0001.531.16–2.02 The health worker told me what danger signs related to the diagnosis to look out for (Ref: disagree)4.533.87–5.310.0004.563.88–5.360.0001.491.13–1.96 Quality of service The health worker took enough time to answer all my questions (Ref: disagree)11.069.31–13.130.00010.949.19–13.020.0002.371.76–3.21 The health worker was careful to check everything when examining me (Ref: disagree)9.928.39–11.720.0009.838.29–11.650.0002.011.49–2.70 The doctor treated me with respect (Ref: disagree)14.1511.30–17.720.00013.4210.70–16.850.0001.911.32–2.77 The nurse treated me with respect (Ref: disagree)9.137.59–10.990.0008.757.25–10.570.0002.081.52–2.85 Type of MHC (Ref: standard MHC) Extended MHC MTHC0.98 0.590.83–1.15 0.49–0.720.794 0.0000.99 0.610.85–1.17 0.51–0.750.943 0.0001.22 0.950.94–1.58 0.69–1.30 Waiting time, minutes (Ref: < 20) 21–60 61–90 > 90
0.44 0.27 0.34
0.37–0.51 0.18–0.41 0.26–0.44
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.44 0.30 0.35
0.38–0.52 0.20–0.45 0.26–0.45
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.66 0.58 0.41
0.51–0.84 0.29–1.17 0.27–0.64 a Model 1. Adjusted for patient characteristics: age, gender, education level and year of arrival in Turkey. b Model 2. Fully adjusted – all variables included.
Discussion
Patient satisfaction is becoming an important patient-based outcome measure in health services. Efforts to improve patient satisfaction may lead to improved utilization of health services (33) and better outcomes because satisfied patients may better adhere to treatment plans and have better health-seeking behaviour (16,34). This study was conducted to evaluate the satisfaction and experience of patients who receive services in MHCs in Turkey and to investigate factors that affect the level of patient satisfaction. A total of 4548 patients in 141 MHCs in 16 provinces consented to participate in the study.
Patient satisfaction and expectations
The study found a higher level of patient satisfaction among refugees and asylum seekers compared with previous studies that evaluated services offered by a specialized unit for refugees or delivered with sensitivity to their language and cultural needs. For example, a German study found a satisfaction level of 84% for patients who visited an
integrated care facility in a reception centre for asylum seekers and refugees. In another example, an Australian study found high levels of satisfaction among Vietnamese refugees accessing specialized mental health services at a specialized unit for refugees (18). Another Australian study on an integrated health service for asylum seekers and refugees also found a high level of satisfaction, with patients placing high value on integrated care, good relationships with staff, and the availability of interpreting services and bicultural workers (19). The 2019 SIHHAT baseline survey on the health needs of Syrian refugees also found that a satisfaction rate of 65% in respondents who had accessed services from a MHC (35), and a follow-up survey in 2020 found that that this rate had increased 66.2% (36). Both studies showed that patients valued language translation services and integrated care, further indicating that migrant- sensitive health-care provision could meet patient needs and increase patient satisfaction. Although this study did not examine the contribution of language translation and integrated care to patient satisfaction in MHCs, these factors underpin the MHC mechanism in Turkey and may, therefore, explain the observed high level of patient satisfaction.
Of all three types of MHCs, respondents were most satisfied with services at standard MHCs. Patient satisfaction with MHTC services was high, but slightly lower than at the other MHCs. The apparently lower level of patient satisfaction in MHTCs might be explained by unmet patient expectations based on anecdotal evidence that patients mistakenly regard MHTCs as hospitals (whereas they are primary care facilities). The fulfilment of patient expectations (regardless of how realistic they may be) has been found to influence patient satisfaction (17,37). As such, patients who visit MHTCs expecting hospital-level medical care may be less satisfied with the primary care services that they receive instead.
In Turkey, the main barriers to accessing health care for refugees have been largely addressed through the MHC mechanism, which provides free-of-charge, culturally sensitive primary health services in their own language. Indeed, only very few respondents had delayed seeking care because they were worried about the cost or the capacity of health facilities to treat their health issue. For most of the respondents, MHCs were accessible within 15 minutes (mostly by walking) or at a transportation cost of less than 5 lira. A previous study found that accessibility to services (in terms of a convenient location) is positively associated with patient satisfaction and service utilization (38). The present study also found that patients with a shorter journey time to reach the health facility were more satisfied.
However, the significance of this factor was lost in the fully controlled model, indicating that it is not very important in influencing patient satisfaction. This may be explained by the fact that the Government of Turkey purposely planned and located MHCs in areas with large Syrian refugee populations.
This study found that MHCs play a key role in addressing barriers in access to health care for refugees. Moreover, those who have accessed services are confident in their capacity to provide the necessary health care; 88.7% said
they would return for the health services in the future, and 88.1% would recommend the services to other people.
Nevertheless, a SIHHAT baseline survey found that more Syrian refugees sought care from hospitals than from MHCs (35). Although the proportion of refugees seeking care from MHCs increased from 29.5% in 2018 to 36.9% in 2020 and from 1.6% to 5.3% in family health centres according to the SIHHAT follow-up survey (36), more effort could be put into further reducing pressure on hospitals. The availability of a wider range of services in hospitals could be the main pull factor for the higher utilization rates; however, it is also possible that refugees are reluctant to use MHCs because they are not fully aware of the available services or have unfounded biases.
Factors that determine patient satisfaction in MHCs
Health-care quality factors have a strong influence on patient satisfaction, including technical care, interpersonal care, physical environment, access (accessibility, availability and finances), organizational characteristics, continuity of care and outcome of care (22). This study found that the strongest predictors of patient satisfaction were the doctor taking time to explain the health condition, the health worker taking time to answer questions and receiving a comprehensive examination. Other studies have shown that the consultation time is positively associated with patient satisfaction (20,33,38,39).
Physicians must balance the time they have with patients against their other tasks such as completing electronic medical records, requesting diagnostic tests, writing prescriptions, making phone calls and sending emails. The time needed for these tasks has increased with increasing computerization and complexity in the primary care system.
Owing to an ageing population and an increasing prevalence of chronic conditions and other complex clinical issues, physicians may have limited time to provide quality care and meet the expectations of all patients while effectively fulfilling other tasks. Time pressures are greater in facilities with high patient loads such as MHCs. In a WHO field assessment of the employability of Syrian health workers in Turkey (Factors affecting employability of trained Syrian health workers in Turkey, WHO Regional Office for Europe, unpublished data, 2020), physicians said that they had high workloads. Similarly, in a job satisfaction survey among health workers in MHCs, 83% and 73% of general and specialist physicians, respectively, reported seeing more than 40 patients per day on average – assuming an eight- hour day, this indicates an average consultation time of less than 12 minutes (40). Therefore, high patient loads mean that consultations could be short. Short consultations may not allow discussion of the full range of the patient’s health-care concerns and the psychosocial determinants of health, resulting in reduced patient understanding, increased dissatisfaction and poor adherence to treatment plans (41). One study argued that making primary care consultations longer (more than 30 minutes for the routine care of complex primary care patients) would probably reduce emergency room and hospital utilization, unnecessary referrals, and unnecessary diagnostic testing, and improve satisfaction levels in both patients and health workers (41). A lower patient-to-physician ratio could reduce patient waiting times and workloads for health workers and increase consultation times. Consequently, patient outcomes and satisfaction could be improved, especially in MHTCs, where patients reported the lowest satisfaction with consultation time.
Respect and recognition of patient preferences, needs and values is a core aspect of people-centred care. This study found that being treated with respect by both doctors and nurses significantly influenced patient satisfaction. Doctors and nurses who treat patients in MHCs are Syrian nationals who have been equipped with the knowledge and skills to work in the Turkish primary health-care system through an adaptation training programme jointly implemented by WHO and the Ministry of Health. As such, patients in MHCs are treated by health workers who are fellow Syrian nationals and have experienced a similar life crisis, which could lead to more empathetic and respectful interactions and, in turn, increase patient satisfaction. Consistent with this study, a positive association between respectful treatment and patient satisfaction was reported previously (42). In particular, nursing care was highlighted as having a stronger impact on care evaluation by patients (17).
Time spent waiting to see a health worker was significantly associated with patient satisfaction: patients who waited for longer were less likely to be satisfied. Other studies have also demonstrated that waiting time is negatively associated with patient satisfaction (33,39,43). The average waiting time was 30 minutes, although more patients in
