Satisfaction of patients and healthcare practitioners with the services provided by urgent care centers in Saudi Arabia, 2024: a cross-sectional study

Satisfaction of patients and healthcare practitioners with the services provided by urgent care centers in Saudi Arabia, 2024: a cross-sectional study | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Satisfaction of patients and healthcare practitioners with the services provided by urgent care centers in Saudi Arabia, 2024: a cross-sectional study Mai T Alharbi, Abdulhameed A Alharbi, Hatim M Alharbi, Abdulaziz T Alharbi, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7157868/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 14 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Urgent care centers offer a timely alternative to prolonged waiting times in emergency departments. Patient satisfaction is a key indicator of service quality, while healthcare practitioner satisfaction is essential for system efficiency and performance. This study aimed to assess the quality of urgent care services by assessing the satisfaction levels among patients and healthcare practitioners and identifying associated factors. Methods A cross-sectional analytical study was conducted using two validated, self-administered questionnaires to assess satisfaction levels and related factors among patients and healthcare practitioners. Student’s t-test and one-way analysis of variance were employed to compare mean satisfaction scores, while the chi-squared test was used to analyze categorical variables. Linear regression analysis identified factors associated with satisfaction. A p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results A total of 425 patients and 103 healthcare practitioners were recruited from urgent care centers. The mean satisfaction score was 72 ± 10 among patients and 68 ± 20 among healthcare practitioners. In the regression analysis of sociodemographic variables, higher patient satisfaction was significantly associated with being non-Saudi and a first-time visitor. Among healthcare practitioners, higher satisfaction was associated with being non-Saudi, male, and working in a nursing role. Easy accessibility was the most influential factor in patients’ preference for urgent care centers over emergency departments. Conclusion Our findings support the expansion of urgent care centers, given the high satisfaction reported by both patients and healthcare practitioners, including physicians and nurses. However, further evaluation of these services is warranted, incorporating additional factors and variables not addressed in this study. patient satisfaction healthcare practitioner urgent care centers Saudi Arabia Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 1. Background Driven by a growing population and increasing demand for healthcare, Saudi Arabia is undergoing a significant transformation in its health sector as part of the Vision 2030 initiative [ 1 ]. This comprehensive reform aims to improve the quality, accessibility, and efficiency of healthcare services nationwide [ 1 ]. The initiative encourages investment in healthcare infrastructure, enabling the establishment of modern facilities and urgent care centers (UCCs) to meet the population's needs [ 2 ]. The UCCs, also referred to as walk-in centers, are defined by the American Academy of Urgent Care Medicine as facilities offering immediate outpatient medical services for the management of acute (non-life-threatening) and chronic illnesses and injuries [ 3 ]. It serves as an alternative to prolonged waiting times in the emergency department (ED), especially when health issues occur outside regular office hours [ 3 ]. UCCs offer an accessible option for individuals seeking healthcare but encounter challenges in scheduling appointments [ 4 , 5 ]. As a healthcare service designed to enhance service quality, UCCs have sparked increasing discussion regarding their effectiveness. It is essential to gain insights into their current performance from the perspectives of both patients receiving care and the healthcare practitioners (HCPs) providing it. One of the crucial indicators of the quality of service provided is patient satisfaction [ 6 ]. It can markedly impact health outcomes [ 6 ]. It encompasses patients' perceptions of their healthcare experiences, including interactions with HCPs, the care environment, and treatment outcomes [ 7 ]. High levels of patient satisfaction are associated with better adherence to treatment, improved health outcomes, and a greater likelihood of patients returning for future care [ 7 ]. Studies show that patient satisfaction is influenced by various factors, including effective communication, perceived quality of care, accessibility, and the overall healthcare environment [ 8 ]. Understanding and improving patient satisfaction can lead to enhanced healthcare services, fostering a more patient-centered approach in clinical settings [ 8 ]. Equally important is the satisfaction of HCPs, which reflects their psychological response to various aspects of their work environment [ 9 ]. This includes factors such as promotion, co-workers, supervision, working conditions, nature of work, communication, workload, and leadership style [ 10 ]. High physician satisfaction is associated with improved patient care and better health outcomes [ 11 ]. There is a well-established positive correlation between HCP job satisfaction and quality of care [ 12 , 13 ]. Different variables affect satisfaction among HCPs, including working hours, stress management, workload, staff scheduling, and patient satisfaction [ 14 ]. UCCs have become increasingly popular as a solution for non-life-threatening medical issues, providing timely care outside traditional office hours [ 15 ]. However, the rapid growth of these services raises questions about the satisfaction levels of both patients and HCPs. Previous studies have indicated varied levels of satisfaction in UCCs and EDs, respectively [ 16 , 17 ]. However, there is a lack of comprehensive research examining satisfaction levels and the factors influencing satisfaction levels in urgent care settings. Understanding satisfaction levels is crucial for enhancing the quality of care provided in UCCs, while patient satisfaction can lead to better health outcomes [ 6 ], and HCP satisfaction is linked to job performance and retention [ 11 ]. Identifying key drivers of satisfaction for both groups and providing insights could improve service delivery and operational efficiency in urgent care. The findings will be beneficial to healthcare administrators, policymakers, and urgent care practitioners, enabling them to implement strategies that enhance service quality and patient care, ultimately leading to improved health system performance. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of urgent care services provided by UCCs in Saudi Arabia from the perspectives of patient and HCP satisfaction and to identify the factors associated with their satisfaction. 2. Methods 2.1 Study setting and population This cross-sectional analytical study was conducted at UCCs in Saudi Arabia between December 9 and 31, 2024. The study population included all patients who attended UCCs and HCPs working in direct contact with the patients. 2.2 Study sample and sample size calculation The required patient sample size was calculated using the Raosoft sample size calculator, based on a 95% confidence level, a 5% margin of error, and an assumed response distribution of 50%. This yielded a minimal required sample size of 384 participants. To account for potential nonresponse, the sample size was increased by 15%, yielding a final target of 442 patients. Convenience sampling was used to recruit all patients who attended the selected UCCs and met the predefined inclusion criteria during the data collection period. For HCPs, data were collected from all eligible and consenting staff working in the selected UCCs during the same period based on their inclusion criteria. 2.3 Inclusion and exclusion criteria Patients aged 18 years and older were included in the study. Exclusion criteria for patients were seeking primary healthcare services, inability to understand Arabic, illiteracy, and refusal to participate. For HCPs, inclusion was limited to physicians and nurses who had been working in the selected UCCs for more than 3 months, ensuring that they had completed the orientation period and had adequate exposure to the work environment. Practitioners who were not assigned to UCCs or had not completed the 3-month orientation period were excluded. 2.4 Exposure and outcome The dependent variables in this study were the satisfaction scores of the patients and HCPs. Independent variables influencing patient satisfaction included accessibility to urgent care services, quality of care provided, communication with the medical team, and overall satisfaction. Regarding HCP satisfaction, the independent variables were perceived management support, work environment, patient satisfaction, quality of care delivered, and overall satisfaction. 2.5 Data collection procedure and tools Patient data were collected by a well-trained team that distributed self-administered questionnaires to the participants and helped clarify unclear items. The questionnaire comprised two parts. The first part included sociodemographic data, including age, sex, nationality, marital status, education level, employment status, number of visits to the UCC, and reasons for choosing the UCC over the ED. Reported reasons included easy accessibility, 24-h service availability, shorter waiting time, higher perceived service quality, no need for scheduled appointments, a more comfortable environment than the ED, and the belief that the condition was minor and did not require ED visits. The second part assessed patient satisfaction with the urgent care services provided. Considering the lack of a validated Arabic language instrument specific to urgent care settings, we developed a new questionnaire. Face validity was established through an expert review by three independent professionals in urgent care and two experts on research methodology. A pilot study was subsequently conducted, followed by reliability testing using Cronbach’s alpha, which yielded an overall reliability score of 0.750. The validated questionnaire included 20 items across four satisfaction domains: accessibility, quality of services, communication with HCPs, and overall satisfaction. Responses were rated on a five-point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree). In parallel, data collection for HCPs was conducted through an online self-administered questionnaire adapted and validated from a previous study to measure practitioners' satisfaction levels [14]. The questionnaire also consisted of two parts. Sociodemographic data collected included age, sex, nationality, marital status, specialty, and work experience. The second part explored satisfaction-related domains, such as management support, work environment, quality of care provided, perceived patient satisfaction, and overall professional satisfaction. Responses were evaluated using a five-point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree). 2.6 Ethical consideration Ethical approval was obtained from the Al-Madinah Health Cluster Institutional Review Board (IRB log No: 24-129). Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation in the study, clearly stating that participation was optional; participants had the right to withdraw at any time, and all collected data were kept confidential. 2.7 Statistical analysis Data were analyzed using SPSS 25 software. Descriptive analyses were used to summarize frequencies, percentages, means, medians, and standard deviations. Student’s t-test and one-way analysis of variance were employed to compare means and standard deviations for continuous variables, while Pearson's chi-squared test was used for categorical variables. Multivariate analysis was conducted using linear regression to analyze the factors associated with satisfaction levels. A p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. 3. Results 3.1 Sociodemographic characteristics of patients This study included 425 patients recruited from five different UCCs, with a response rate of 96.2%. Most patients were aged between 18 and 45 years (82.9%), with 40.5% in the 26–45 years age group and 15.8% in the 46–65 years age group. Males represented 57.9% of the sample, and nearly 90% were Saudi nationals. Regarding marital status, 52.2% were married and 45.2% were single. In terms of education, 52.5% held a college degree or diploma, whereas 39.5% had a general education. Employment data showed that 38.3% were employed, and 37.2% were students. Regarding previous visits to UCCs, 39.1% had visited more than five times, 25.6% had visited 2 or 3 times, and 20.0% were first-time visitors (Table 1). Table 1: Sociodemographic characteristics of patients Patients’ category Frequency (n=425) Percentage (%) Age 18–25 26–45 46–65 ≥ 66 180 172 67 6 42.4 40.5 15.8 1.4 Sex Male Female 246 179 57.9 42.1 Nationality Saudi Non-Saudi 382 43 89.9 9.1 Marital status Married Single Divorced/ Widowed 222 192 11 52.2 45.2 2.6 Education level Can only read and write General education College or Diploma degree Post- graduate degree 15 168 223 19 3.5 39.5 52.5 4.5 Employment Status Student (school or college) Employee Neither working nor studying 158 163 104 37.2 38.3 24.5 Prior visits to UCCs First time 1–2 times 3–5 times > 5 times 89 61 109 166 20.9 14.4 25.6 39.1 3.2 Patients’ satisfaction score The overall patient’s satisfaction score was 72 (±10) out of 100, with various levels of satisfaction across different domains. The general satisfaction domain received the highest score of 75 (±13.5) out of 100, followed closely by the quality of provided service, which scored 73 (±11). Accessibility to services ranked third with a score of 70 (±14), while communication with the medical team had the lowest score at 68 (±13) (Table 2). Table 2: Patients satisfaction score by domains Satisfaction Domain Score out of 100 SD General satisfaction with service 75 ±13.5 Quality of provided service 73 ± 11 Accessibility to services 70 ± 14 Communication with the medical team 68 ± 13 3.3 Factors influencing the preference of UCCs over ED Among the 425 participants, several factors influenced their decision to use UCCs rather than ED. The most cited was easy accessibility, reported by 314 participants (73.9%), followed by 24-h service availability, as cited by 163 participants (38.4%). A total of 116 participants (27.3%) perceived their condition as minor and not requiring ED care, 113 (26.6%) reported no need for scheduled appointments, and 92 (21.6%) cited a shorter waiting time (Figure 1). 3.4 Comparisons of patient satisfaction total score by sociodemographic characteristics A statistically significant difference in mean patient satisfaction was observed between Saudi and non-Saudi participants (p = 0.003). Additionally, the frequency of visits to UCCs was significantly associated with satisfaction levels (p = 0.035). Post-hoc analysis using the least significant difference method indicated that patients who had visited UCCs more than five times reported significantly higher satisfaction than those visiting for the first time (p = 0.013) and those with 3–5 prior visits (p = 0.012). In contrast, no statistically significant differences in satisfaction were found across other sociodemographic variables, including age, sex, marital status, educational level, and employment status (Table 3). Table 3: Comparisons of patient satisfaction total score by sociodemographic characteristics Category Mean SD P. Value Age 18–25 26–45 46–65 ≥ 66 72.9 70.33 72.15 69 10.9 9.6 9.14 4.5 .108 Sex Male Female 70.94 72.67 10.4 9.7 0.83 Nationality Saudi Non-Saudi 71.14 76.12 9.7 11.9 .003* Marital status Married Single Divorced/ Widowed 72.4 71.00 72.00 10.6 9.8 6.9 .354 Education level Can only read and write General education College or Diploma degree Post graduated degree 77.00 70.85 71.81 73.11 10.6 8.1 11.3 10.4 .128 Employment Status Student (school or college) Employee Neither working nor studying 72.96 70.90 70.91 11.44 9.80 8.21 .130 Prior visits to UCCs First time 1–2 times 3–5 times > 5 times 74.09 72.72 70.46 70.78 11.5 9.2 9.8 9.6 .035* Dependent Variable: Overall patient satisfaction score SD refers to standard deviation *P. value ≤ 0.05 based on t- test and one way analysis of variance 3.5 Multivariate analysis of patient satisfaction A multivariate analysis of patient satisfaction, utilizing linear regression and after adjusting for other covariates in the model, revealed a statistically significant difference in satisfaction levels based on nationality. Specifically, non-Saudi patients had 4.9 (95% CI: 1.88–7.98) higher mean satisfaction than Saudi patients. Additionally, the analysis indicated that patients visiting UCCs for the first time had 2.7 (95% CI: 0.38–5.1) higher mean satisfaction than those who had more than five visits (Table 4). Table 4: Multivariate analysis of patient satisfaction Unstandardized Coefficients 95% Confidence interval for B Model B Sig Upper Bound Lower Bound Constant 65.6 0.000 62.163 69.149 Nationality Saudi (Reference) Non-Saudi 000 4.933 000 0.002* 000 1.88 000 7.98 Prior visits to UCCs > five times (Reference) First time 000 2.725 000 0.023* 000 0.382 000 5.068 Dependent Variable: Overall patient satisfaction score * P < 0.05, based on linear regression 3.6 Sociodemographic characteristics of HCPs Among the 103 HCPs included in the study, the predominant age group was 21–30 years (46.6%), followed by 31–40 years (32.0%) and 41–50 years (21.4%). Most participants were male (63.1%) and Saudi nationals (90.3%). Regarding marital status, 65.0% were married and 31.1% were single. In terms of professional roles, 57.3% were physicians and 42.7% were nurses. With respect to work experience, 45.6% reported having 5 or more years of experience and 28.2% had 2–4 years of experience (Table 5). Table 5: Sociodemographic characteristics of healthcare practitioners (HCPs) HCP category Frequency (n=103) Percentage (%) Age 21–30 31–40 41–50 >50 48 33 22 00 46.6 32.0 21.4 00 Sex Male Female 65 38 63.1 36.9 Nationality Saudi Non-Saudi 93 10 90.3 9.7 Marital status Single Married Divorced/ Widowed 32 67 4 31.1 65 3.9 Profession Physician Nurse 59 44 57.3 42.7 Work experience Up to 1 year 2–4 years ≥ 5 years 27 29 47 26.2 28.2 45.6 3.7 HCP satisfaction score The mean overall satisfaction score among HCPs was 68 ± 20 out of 100. Among the assessed satisfaction domains, the highest mean score was observed for patient satisfaction (79 ± 25), followed by management support (72 ± 23). Both work environment and quality of care received identical mean scores of 68, with standard deviations of ±21 and ±22, respectively. The lowest mean score was recorded for general satisfaction (58 ± 19) (Table 6). Table 6: Healthcare practitioner (HCP) satisfaction score per domain Satisfaction domain Score out of 100 SD Patient Satisfaction 79 ±25 Supporting Management 72 ±23 Work Environment 68 ±21 Quality Of Provided Care 68 ±22 General Satisfaction 58 ±19 3.8 Factors influencing job satisfaction among HCPs Among the 103 HCPs, the most frequently reported factor influencing job satisfaction was supporting management, as cited by 84 participants (81.6 %). This was followed by the work environment, which was reported by 82 participants (79.6%), and the quality of care provided by 66 participants (64.1%). Salary was the least reported factor, cited by 63 participants (61.2 %) (Figure 2). 3.9 Comparisons of HCP satisfaction total score by sociodemographic characteristics A statistically significant difference in mean satisfaction scores was observed between Saudi and non-Saudi HCPs (p = 0.011). Additionally, profession was a significant factor, with a notable difference in satisfaction levels between physicians and nurses (p = 0.036). In contrast, no significant differences in satisfaction scores were identified across other sociodemographic variables, including age, sex, marital status, and years of work experience (Table 7). Table 7: Comparisons of healthcare practitioner (HCP) satisfaction total score by sociodemographic characteristics HCP category Mean SD P. Value Age 21–30 31–40 41–50 >50 65.95 67.25 73.67 18.77 20.75 23.12 .332 Sex Male Female 70.05 64.54 21.27 18.62 .188 Nationality Saudi Non-Saudi 66.35 83.50 20.28 14.97 .011* Marital status Single Married Divorced/ Widowed 69.22 67.66 64.38 18.70 21.12 26.62 .881 Profession Physician Nurse 64.38 72.90 18.28 22.26 .036* Work experience Up to 1 year 2–4 years ≥ 5 years 66.91 62.82 71.86 15.95 21.53 21.57 .164 Dependent variable: Overall HCP satisfaction score SD refers to standard deviation * P. value ≤ 0.05 based on t- test and one way analysis of variance 3.10 Multivariate analysis of HCP satisfaction In the linear regression analysis of HCP satisfaction, after adjusting for other covariates in the model, nationality was significantly associated with mean satisfaction scores. Non-Saudi professionals reported a significantly higher mean satisfaction score than their Saudi counterparts, with a mean difference of 26.9 points (95% CI: 13.445–40.423). Sex was also a significant predictor, with male HCPs reporting higher satisfaction than females by an average of 10.030 points (95% CI: 1.879–18.181). Moreover, nurses exhibited significantly greater satisfaction than physicians, with a mean difference of 10.7 points (95% CI: 3.134–18.324) as shown in Table 8. Table 8: Multivariate analysis of healthcare practitioner (HCP) satisfaction Unstandardized Coefficients 95% Confidence interval for B Model B Sig Upper Bound Lower Bound Constant 34.217 0.001 13.498 54.936 Nationality Saudi (Reference) Non-Saudi 000 26.934 000 .000* 000 13.445 000 40.423 Sex Female (Reference) Male 000 10.030 000 .016* 000 1.879 000 18.181 Profession Physician (Reference) Nurse 000 10.729 000 .006* 000 3.134 000 18.324 Dependent variable: Overall HCP satisfaction score * P < 0.05, based on linear regression 4. Discussion In this cross-sectional analytical study, we assessed the satisfaction levels among patients and HCPs in UCCs in Saudi Arabia, as well as the factors associated with satisfaction levels. The overall patient satisfaction score was 72 out of 100, indicating a generally favorable perception of urgent care services. This finding aligns with the results of Howard et al. (2007), who reported a satisfaction score of 4.7 out of 7 among patients attending walk-in clinics in Ontario [ 18 ]. In contrast, a study by Arain et al. (2013) reported high satisfaction levels (86–93%) among patients using walk-in services in the United Kingdom, indicating that they were highly or fairly satisfied [ 19 ]. This variation may be attributed to differences in the healthcare system, population characteristics, or the measurement tool employed. Furthermore, our data were collected in December, a typically high-demand winter season, when healthcare facilities often experience overcrowding, potentially leading to an underestimation of satisfaction levels. This study showed variation among satisfaction domains. General satisfaction was the highest-rated domain with a score of 75 out of 100, whereas communication with the medical team scored the lowest, at 68 out of 100. Similar findings were reported by Almanaah et al. [ 20 ] that the overall satisfaction levels of patients attending urgent care clinics in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, varied across different dimensions of care. Precisely, interactions with healthcare providers received moderate satisfaction ratings of 34–36% [ 20 ]. Additionally, the current study demonstrated a significant association between patient satisfaction and nationality, with non-Saudi patients reporting higher satisfaction levels than Saudis. In contrast, previous studies have generally found no such association, raising questions about the potential differences in cultural backgrounds and expectations. Notably, the high variation in the sample size between Saudi and non-Saudi participants in this study may have contributed to the observed variation in satisfaction. Another factor associated with patient satisfaction was the number of prior UCC visits. A significant difference in satisfaction was observed between first-time visitors and those with five or more visits. This finding contrasts with the results of Arain et al., who reported no difference in satisfaction between first-time and repeat users [ 19 ]. The discrepancy may be explained by the substantial variation in overall satisfaction levels between the two studies. In a related context, the current study showed that patients choose UCCs over EDs because of their ease of access. This finding is consistent with those of other studies that highlighted accessibility as one of the main reasons for this preference. Other studies also addressed accessibility to services without a previous appointment as one of the main reasons for patients attending walk-in clinics [ 4 , 19 , 21 ]. In the context of HCP satisfaction, although the overall mean satisfaction score was lower than that of the patients, it still reflected a positive perception, achieving only 68 out of 100. The patient satisfaction domain predominantly influenced HCP satisfaction, with a score of 79 out of 100; however, the general satisfaction domain ranked the lowest, with a mean score of only 58 out of 100. Furthermore, factors related to management support and the work environment were identified as the primary contributors to job satisfaction among HCPs. Sex, profession, and nationality were statistically significant variables affecting satisfaction levels. These findings are in agreement with those of AlJumail & Rabbani [ 22 ], with over 50% of HCPs working in primary healthcare centers in Qassim, Saudi Arabia, having ambivalent satisfaction, with males being more satisfied, although it was statistically insignificant. By contrast, Saudi HCPs and physicians were more satisfied with their jobs [ 22 ]. Similar findings were observed by Halawani et al. (2021) among HCPs in Saudi Arabia, where patient satisfaction significantly affected participants’ satisfaction with their job [ 14 ]. Similarly, poor management was the factor that affected the quality of the care provided. However, overall job satisfaction was neutral to low, which is inconsistent with the findings of the current study. Additionally, female HCPs showed higher satisfaction than males, whereas professions showed no difference in satisfaction among HCPs, which does not align with the findings of this study. Our results also agree with Al Juhani & Kishk (2006), with non-Saudi HCPs working in Al-Madinah, Saudi Arabia, showing higher satisfaction than their Saudi counterparts; however, in contrast to our findings, physicians seemed to be more satisfied than nurses, although an overall unfavorable job satisfaction was observed among HCPs [ 23 ]. The difference in findings regarding the level of satisfaction and factors influencing job satisfaction might be explained by the differences in the nature of work between urgent care and PHC, as well as hospitals. Moreover, organizational support, operating conditions, co-workers, pay, workload, and communication can influence satisfaction with healthcare [ 10 ]. A notable strength of our study is the dual focus on patient and HCP satisfaction. While many studies prioritize patient perspectives, we deliberately included HCPs to provide a comprehensive evaluation of service quality. This inclusive approach offers a fuller understanding of the dynamics within urgent care environments. Additionally, using linear regression helped control for potential confounding factors, strengthening our findings. However, like all research endeavors, our study is subject to certain limitations, particularly when evaluating satisfaction in urgent care settings, where judgment may be compromised by immediate health concerns or prolonged waiting times, which could lead to an underestimation of the satisfaction levels compared with those observed in other studies. 5. Conclusion In summary, our study revealed a generally favorable perception of urgent care services among patients attending UCCs; notably, non-Saudi and first-time visitors expressed higher satisfaction than their counterparts. However, HCPs exhibited a comparatively lower level of satisfaction than the patients; nevertheless, this still reflects an overall positive perception. Additionally, males, non-Saudis, and nurses expressed higher levels of satisfaction than their counterparts. Given the observed satisfaction among patients and HCPs, our findings support the expansion of UCCs. Further research is warranted to examine the satisfaction, needs, and demands of both groups, particularly within the urgent care context, by incorporating additional factors and variables not addressed in this study. This comprehensive approach will lead to the provision of high-quality urgent care services that adequately meet the expectations of Saudi Vision 2030. Abbreviations UCC, urgent care centers; HCP, healthcare practitioners; ED, emergency department AAUCM, American Academy of Urgent Care Medicine Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate : This cross-sectional study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval was obtained from the Al-Madinah Health Cluster Institutional Review Board (IRB log No: 24-129), approval date December 9, 2024. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation in the study, clearly stating that participation was optional; participants had the right to withdraw at any time, and all collected data were kept confidential. Consent for publication: Not applicable Availability of data and materials: All data collected and analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author upon request Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Funding: This research received no external funding Authors’ Contributions: Conceptualization, M.T.A and A.M.A ; methodology, M.T.A and A.A.A; software, M.T.A and H.M.A; validation, A.A.A and H.M.A; formal analysis, M.T.A and A.T.A; data curation, H.M.A and A.M.A ; writing—original draft preparation, M.T.A and A.T.A; writing—review and editing, M.T.A and A.A.A.; supervision, A.A.A. Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their gratitude to Dr.Omar Aljuhoney and Dr. Abdulqodos Abdulrhman, Family medicine consultants, who assisted in validating the questionnaire. Special thanks to Professor Sami Abdo Al-Dubai for his contributions to the analysis and to Editage.com for their assistance with English language editing for this article. References Saudi Vision 2030. National Transformation Program. https://www.vision2030.gov.sa. Accessed 20 June 2025. Ministry of Health. Saudi Arabia; 2020. Health Sector Transformation. https://www.moh.gov.sa. Leaders in the Field of Urgent Care Medicine; 2023. https://aaucm.org/. [ Dec; 2023 ]. Coster JE, Turner JK, Bradbury D, Cantrell A. Why do people choose emergency and urgent care services? A rapid review utilizing a systematic literature search and narrative synthesis. Acad Emerg Med. 2017;24:1137-49. Albalahi NM, Al Bargawi M, Kofi M. Awareness and utilization of urgent care services among patients attending al-Wazarat PHCC in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 2020. J Family Med Prim Care . 2021;10:4452-62. Epub. Asamrew N, Endris AA, Tadesse M. Level of patient satisfaction with inpatient services and its determinants: A study of a Specialized Hospital in Ethiopia. J Environ Public Health . 2020;2020:2473469. Bleich SN, Ozaltin E, Murray CJL. How does satisfaction with the healthcare system relate to patient experience? Health Aff. 2009;28:1184-95. Hewitt J, et al. The Impact of Patient Satisfaction on Health Outcomes: A systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2020;25:107-16. Harrison DA, Newman DA, Roth PL. How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Acad Manag J. 2006;49:305-25. Alkhateeb M, Althabaiti K, Ahmed S, Lövestad S, Khan J. A Systematic Review of the Determinants of Job Satisfaction in Healthcare Workers in Health Facilities in Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Glob Health Action. 2025;18:2479910. Sinsky CA, Willard-Grace R, Schutzbank AM, Sinsky TA, Margolius D, Bodenheimer T. In search of joy in practice: A report of 27 high- performing primary care practices. Ann Fam Med. 2016;14:425-31. Borrill C, West MA, Shapiro D, Rees A. Team working and effectiveness in health care. Br J Health Care. 2000;6:364-71. Shin JI, Lee E. The effect of social capital on job satisfaction and quality of care among hospital nurses in South Korea. J Nurs Manag. 2016;24:934-42. Halawani LA, Halawani MA, Beyari GM. Job satisfaction among Saudi healthcare workers and its impact on the quality of health services. J Family Med Prim Care. 2021;10:1873-81. Yee T, Lechner AE, Boukus ER. The surge in urgent care centers: emergency department alternative or costly convenience? Res Brief. 2013;(26):1-6. Alhajri SM, Aljehani NM, El Dalatony MM, Alsuwayt SS, Alhumaidany TM, Aldossary MS. Patients' satisfaction with the quality of services at primary Healthcare Centers in Saudi Arabia. Cureus. 2023;15:e45066. Almass A, Aljohani HM, Alhaqbani RM, Alromih AM, Hadal S, Abozaid HS. Patient satisfaction with quality of care at the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Cureus. 2022;14:e32102. Howard M, Goertzen J, Hutchison B, Kaczorowski J, Morris K. Patient satisfaction with care for urgent health problems: A survey of family practice patients. Ann Fam Med. 2007;5:419-24. Arain M, Nicholl J, Campbell M. Patients’ experience and satisfaction with GP led walk-in centres in the UK; A cross-sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:142. Almanaah MA, Alfarraj JF, Kofi M. Patient satisfaction in urgent care clinics among attendants in PHCs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Eur. Appl Sci. 2025;3:63-76. Savira F, Frith M, Aditya CJ, Randall S, White N, Giddy A, et al. Urgent care centres for reducing the demand on emergency departments: A scoping review of published quantitative and qualitative studies. Med J Aust. 2025;222:450-61. AlJumail E, Rabbani U. Job satisfaction among primary health care workers in Buraidah, Qassim, Saudi Arabia . Med. 2021;19:27-33. Al Juhani AM, Kishk NA. Job satisfaction among primary health care physicians and nurses in al-Madinah al-Munawwara. J Egypt Public Health Assoc. 2006;81:165-80. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files UrgentCareSatisfactionSurveyEnglishFull.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 08 Oct, 2025 Reviews received at journal 26 Aug, 2025 Reviews received at journal 26 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 22 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 20 Aug, 2025 Reviews received at journal 17 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 17 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 16 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 14 Aug, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 14 Aug, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 13 Aug, 2025 Editor invited by journal 22 Jul, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 22 Jul, 2025 First submitted to journal 22 Jul, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7157868","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":503280744,"identity":"e90f774a-7ad1-40a4-9ab2-74a58dc5c0bf","order_by":0,"name":"Mai T Alharbi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Taibah University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mai","middleName":"T","lastName":"Alharbi","suffix":""},{"id":503280747,"identity":"f6a3cd91-ed65-4b51-9c78-5138211445db","order_by":1,"name":"Abdulhameed A Alharbi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Al-Madinah Health Cluster, Al Madinah Al- Munawarah","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Abdulhameed","middleName":"A","lastName":"Alharbi","suffix":""},{"id":503280750,"identity":"2e83c89f-f509-49ff-b5e2-029549d37361","order_by":2,"name":"Hatim M Alharbi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Al Madinah Al-Munawarah","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hatim","middleName":"M","lastName":"Alharbi","suffix":""},{"id":503280754,"identity":"7f68ebd2-b08f-4817-a387-034033aa7b07","order_by":3,"name":"Abdulaziz T Alharbi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Al-Rayan National Colleges of Medicine, Al Madinah Al-Munawarah","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Abdulaziz","middleName":"T","lastName":"Alharbi","suffix":""},{"id":503280756,"identity":"b3271a44-cce0-4721-b99b-db19182afb19","order_by":4,"name":"Abdulaziz M Alharbi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Al-Rayan National Colleges of Medicine, Al Madinah Al-Munawarah","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Abdulaziz","middleName":"M","lastName":"Alharbi","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-18 12:53:18","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7157868/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7157868/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":89667531,"identity":"d068d636-f6e6-475a-9ea2-87cabd01a104","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-22 12:15:59","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":39202,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFactors influencing the preference of UCCs over the ED\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7157868/v1/334f8f84339dad11b1140024.png"},{"id":89666139,"identity":"e923c267-1f8b-4873-adb7-a75ae9f49774","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-22 12:07:59","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":81640,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFactors influencing job satisfaction among HCPs\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7157868/v1/15d89333c0a583c5a1b07a61.png"},{"id":89668521,"identity":"0e131f49-bb99-4787-a32e-c1c52fda918e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-22 12:31:59","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1035756,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7157868/v1/2be89227-6829-4c4e-981d-c9a1782d9fe9.pdf"},{"id":89666136,"identity":"e34088db-3219-44e7-88a2-60ed9873beaf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-22 12:07:59","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":30825,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"UrgentCareSatisfactionSurveyEnglishFull.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7157868/v1/c446fce609a3d38cf5404ff9.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Satisfaction of patients and healthcare practitioners with the services provided by urgent care centers in Saudi Arabia, 2024: a cross-sectional study","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eDriven by a growing population and increasing demand for healthcare, Saudi Arabia is undergoing a significant transformation in its health sector as part of the Vision 2030 initiative [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. This comprehensive reform aims to improve the quality, accessibility, and efficiency of healthcare services nationwide [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. The initiative encourages investment in healthcare infrastructure, enabling the establishment of modern facilities and urgent care centers (UCCs) to meet the population's needs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. The UCCs, also referred to as walk-in centers, are defined by the American Academy of Urgent Care Medicine as facilities offering immediate outpatient medical services for the management of acute (non-life-threatening) and chronic illnesses and injuries [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. It serves as an alternative to prolonged waiting times in the emergency department (ED), especially when health issues occur outside regular office hours [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. UCCs offer an accessible option for individuals seeking healthcare but encounter challenges in scheduling appointments [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs a healthcare service designed to enhance service quality, UCCs have sparked increasing discussion regarding their effectiveness. It is essential to gain insights into their current performance from the perspectives of both patients receiving care and the healthcare practitioners (HCPs) providing it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne of the crucial indicators of the quality of service provided is patient satisfaction [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. It can markedly impact health outcomes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. It encompasses patients' perceptions of their healthcare experiences, including interactions with HCPs, the care environment, and treatment outcomes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. High levels of patient satisfaction are associated with better adherence to treatment, improved health outcomes, and a greater likelihood of patients returning for future care [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. Studies show that patient satisfaction is influenced by various factors, including effective communication, perceived quality of care, accessibility, and the overall healthcare environment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. Understanding and improving patient satisfaction can lead to enhanced healthcare services, fostering a more patient-centered approach in clinical settings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEqually important is the satisfaction of HCPs, which reflects their psychological response to various aspects of their work environment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. This includes factors such as promotion, co-workers, supervision, working conditions, nature of work, communication, workload, and leadership style [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. High physician satisfaction is associated with improved patient care and better health outcomes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. There is a well-established positive correlation between HCP job satisfaction and quality of care [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. Different variables affect satisfaction among HCPs, including working hours, stress management, workload, staff scheduling, and patient satisfaction [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUCCs have become increasingly popular as a solution for non-life-threatening medical issues, providing timely care outside traditional office hours [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. However, the rapid growth of these services raises questions about the satisfaction levels of both patients and HCPs. Previous studies have indicated varied levels of satisfaction in UCCs and EDs, respectively [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, there is a lack of comprehensive research examining satisfaction levels and the factors influencing satisfaction levels in urgent care settings. Understanding satisfaction levels is crucial for enhancing the quality of care provided in UCCs, while patient satisfaction can lead to better health outcomes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e], and HCP satisfaction is linked to job performance and retention [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. Identifying key drivers of satisfaction for both groups and providing insights could improve service delivery and operational efficiency in urgent care. The findings will be beneficial to healthcare administrators, policymakers, and urgent care practitioners, enabling them to implement strategies that enhance service quality and patient care, ultimately leading to improved health system performance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to evaluate the quality of urgent care services provided by UCCs in Saudi Arabia from the perspectives of patient and HCP satisfaction and to identify the factors associated with their satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.1 Study setting and population\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis cross-sectional analytical study was conducted at UCCs in Saudi Arabia between December 9 and 31, 2024. The study population included all patients who attended UCCs and HCPs working in direct contact with the patients.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.2 Study sample and sample size calculation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe required patient sample size was calculated using the Raosoft sample size calculator, based on a 95% confidence level, a 5% margin of error, and an assumed response distribution of 50%. This yielded a minimal required sample size of 384 participants. To account for potential nonresponse, the sample size was increased by 15%, yielding a final target of 442 patients. Convenience sampling was used to recruit all patients who attended the selected UCCs and met the predefined inclusion criteria during the data collection period. For HCPs, data were collected from all eligible and consenting staff working in the selected UCCs during the same period based on their inclusion criteria.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.3 Inclusion and exclusion criteria\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePatients aged 18 years and older were included in the study. Exclusion criteria for patients were seeking primary healthcare services, inability to understand Arabic, illiteracy, and refusal to participate. For HCPs, inclusion was limited to physicians and nurses who had been working in the selected UCCs for more than 3 months, ensuring that they had completed the orientation period and had adequate exposure to the work environment. Practitioners who were not assigned to UCCs or had not completed the 3-month orientation period were excluded.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.4 Exposure and outcome\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe dependent variables in this study were the satisfaction scores of the patients and HCPs. Independent variables influencing patient satisfaction included accessibility to urgent care services, quality of care provided, communication with the medical team, and overall satisfaction. Regarding HCP satisfaction, the independent variables were perceived management support, work environment, patient satisfaction, quality of care delivered, and overall satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.5 Data collection procedure and tools\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePatient data were collected by a well-trained team that distributed self-administered questionnaires to the participants and helped clarify unclear items. The questionnaire comprised two parts. The first part included sociodemographic data, including age, sex, nationality, marital status, education level, employment status, number of visits to the UCC, and reasons for choosing the UCC over the ED. Reported reasons included easy accessibility, 24-h service availability, shorter waiting time, higher perceived service quality, no need for scheduled appointments, a more comfortable environment than the ED, and the belief that the condition was minor and did not require ED visits.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe second part assessed patient satisfaction with the urgent care services provided. Considering the lack of a validated Arabic language instrument specific to urgent care settings, we developed a new questionnaire. Face validity was established through an expert review by three independent professionals in urgent care and two experts on research methodology. A pilot study was subsequently conducted, followed by reliability testing using Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha, which yielded an overall reliability score of 0.750. The validated questionnaire included 20 items across four satisfaction domains: accessibility, quality of services, communication with HCPs, and overall satisfaction. Responses were rated on a five-point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn parallel, data collection for HCPs was conducted through an online self-administered questionnaire adapted and validated from a previous study to measure practitioners\u0026apos; satisfaction levels [14]. The questionnaire also consisted of two parts. Sociodemographic data collected included age, sex, nationality, marital status, specialty, and work experience. The second part explored satisfaction-related domains, such as management support, work environment, quality of care provided, perceived patient satisfaction, and overall professional satisfaction. Responses were evaluated using a five-point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.6 Ethical consideration\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical approval was obtained from the Al-Madinah Health Cluster Institutional Review Board (IRB log No: 24-129). Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation in the study, clearly stating that participation was optional; participants had the right to withdraw at any time, and all collected data were kept confidential.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2.7 Statistical analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were analyzed using SPSS 25 software. Descriptive analyses were used to summarize frequencies, percentages, means, medians, and standard deviations. Student\u0026rsquo;s t-test and one-way analysis of variance were employed to compare means and standard deviations for continuous variables, while Pearson\u0026apos;s chi-squared test was used for categorical variables. Multivariate analysis was conducted using linear regression to analyze the factors associated with satisfaction levels. A p-value \u003cdel cite=\"mailto:Author\" datetime=\"2025-07-16T20:25\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/del\u003e\u0026le; 0.05 was considered statistically significant.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.1 Sociodemographic characteristics of patients\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study included 425 patients recruited from five different UCCs, with a response rate of 96.2%. Most patients were aged between 18 and 45 years (82.9%), with 40.5% in the 26\u0026ndash;45 years age group and 15.8% in the 46\u0026ndash;65 years age group. Males represented 57.9% of the sample, and nearly 90% were Saudi nationals. Regarding marital status, 52.2% were married and 45.2% were single. In terms of education, 52.5% held a college degree or diploma, whereas 39.5% had a general education. Employment data showed that 38.3% were employed, and 37.2% were students. Regarding previous visits to UCCs, 39.1% had visited more than five times, 25.6% had visited 2 or 3 times, and 20.0% were first-time visitors (Table 1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1: Sociodemographic characteristics of patients\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" align=\"\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 324px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePatients\u0026rsquo; category\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFrequency\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(n=425)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePercentage (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 324px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAge\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u0026ndash;25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26\u0026ndash;45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46\u0026ndash;65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ge; 66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e180\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e172\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 324px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSex\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e246\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e179\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 324px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNationality\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSaudi\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNon-Saudi\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e382\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e89.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 324px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMarital status\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarried\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSingle\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDivorced/ Widowed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e222\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e192\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 324px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEducation level\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCan only read and write\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGeneral education\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCollege or Diploma degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePost-\u003cdel cite=\"mailto:Author\" datetime=\"2025-07-13T11:28\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/del\u003egraduate degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e168\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e223\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 324px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmployment Status\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent (school or college)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmployee\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNeither working nor studying\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e158\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e163\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e104\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 324px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrior visits to UCCs\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFirst time\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;2 times\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u0026ndash;5 times\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt; 5 times\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e109\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e166\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 115px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.2 Patients\u0026rsquo; satisfaction score\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe overall patient\u0026rsquo;s satisfaction score was 72 (\u0026plusmn;10) out of 100, with various levels of satisfaction across different domains. The general satisfaction domain received the highest score of 75 (\u0026plusmn;13.5) out of 100, followed closely by the quality of provided service, which scored 73 (\u0026plusmn;11). Accessibility to services ranked third with a score of 70 (\u0026plusmn;14), while communication with the medical team had the lowest score at 68 (\u0026plusmn;13) (Table 2).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2: Patients satisfaction score by domains\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 349px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSatisfaction Domain\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eScore out of 100\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSD\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 349px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGeneral satisfaction with service\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn;13.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 349px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQuality of provided service\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e73\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn; 11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 349px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAccessibility to services\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn; 14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 349px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCommunication with the medical team\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn; 13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.3 Factors influencing the preference of UCCs over ED\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong the 425 participants, several factors influenced their decision to use UCCs rather than ED. The most cited was easy accessibility, reported by 314 participants (73.9%), followed by 24-h service availability, as cited by 163 participants (38.4%). A total of 116 participants (27.3%) perceived their condition as minor and not requiring ED care, 113 (26.6%) reported no need for scheduled appointments, and 92 (21.6%) cited a shorter waiting time (Figure 1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.4 Comparisons of patient satisfaction total score by sociodemographic characteristics\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA statistically significant difference in mean patient satisfaction was observed between Saudi and non-Saudi participants (p = 0.003). Additionally, the frequency of visits to UCCs was significantly associated with satisfaction levels (p = 0.035). Post-hoc analysis using the least significant difference method indicated that patients who had visited UCCs more than five times reported significantly higher satisfaction than those visiting for the first time (p = 0.013) and those with 3\u0026ndash;5 prior visits (p = 0.012). In contrast, no statistically significant differences in satisfaction were found across other sociodemographic variables, including age, sex, marital status, educational level, and employment status (Table 3).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3: Comparisons of patient satisfaction total score by sociodemographic characteristics\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCategory\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 147px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSD\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eP. Value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAge\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u0026ndash;25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26\u0026ndash;45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46\u0026ndash;65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ge; 66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 147px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e72.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e72.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.108\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSex\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 147px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e72.67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNationality\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSaudi\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNon-Saudi\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 147px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e71.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e76.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.003*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMarital status\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarried\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSingle\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDivorced/ Widowed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 147px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e72.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e71.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e72.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.354\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEducation level\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCan only read and write\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGeneral education\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCollege or Diploma degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePost graduated degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 147px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e77.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e71.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e73.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.128\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmployment Status\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent (school or college)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmployee\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNeither working nor studying\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 147px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e72.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.130\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 293px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrior visits to UCCs\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFirst time\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;2 times\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u0026ndash;5 times\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt; 5 times\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 147px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e74.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e72.72\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70.46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.035*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDependent Variable: Overall patient satisfaction score\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSD refers to standard deviation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e*P. value \u0026le; 0.05 based on t- test and one way analysis of variance\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.5 Multivariate analysis of patient satisfaction\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA multivariate analysis of patient satisfaction, utilizing linear regression and after adjusting for other covariates in the model, revealed a statistically significant difference in satisfaction levels based on nationality. Specifically, non-Saudi patients had 4.9 (95% CI: 1.88\u0026ndash;7.98) higher mean satisfaction than Saudi patients. Additionally, the analysis indicated that patients visiting UCCs for the first time had 2.7 (95% CI: 0.38\u0026ndash;5.1) higher mean satisfaction than those who had more than five visits (Table 4).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 4: Multivariate analysis of patient satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 228px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnstandardized Coefficients\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 192px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95% Confidence interval for B\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 228px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModel\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUpper Bound\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLower Bound\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 228px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e62.163\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e69.149\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 228px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNationality\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSaudi (Reference)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNon-Saudi\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.933\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.002*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.98\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 228px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrior visits to UCCs\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026gt; five times (Reference)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFirst time\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.725\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.023*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.382\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.068\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDependent Variable: Overall patient satisfaction score\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e* P \u0026lt; 0.05, based on linear regression\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.6 Sociodemographic characteristics of HCPs\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong the 103 HCPs included in the study, the predominant age group was 21\u0026ndash;30 years (46.6%), followed by 31\u0026ndash;40 years (32.0%) and 41\u0026ndash;50 years (21.4%). Most participants were male (63.1%) and Saudi nationals (90.3%). Regarding marital status, 65.0% were married and 31.1% were single. In terms of professional roles, 57.3% were physicians and 42.7% were nurses. With respect to work experience, 45.6% reported having 5 or more years of experience and 28.2% had 2\u0026ndash;4 years of experience (Table 5).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 5: Sociodemographic characteristics of healthcare practitioners (HCPs)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHCP category\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFrequency\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(n=103)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePercentage\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAge\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u0026ndash;30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31\u0026ndash;40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41\u0026ndash;50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026gt;50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 44px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSex\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNationality\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSaudi\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNon-Saudi\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e93\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMarital status\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSingle\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarried\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDivorced/ Widowed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProfession\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhysician\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNurse\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 246px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWork experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUp to 1 year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u0026ndash;4 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ge; 5 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 6px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.7 HCP satisfaction score\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe mean overall satisfaction score among \u003cdel cite=\"mailto:Author\" datetime=\"2025-07-16T20:25\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/del\u003eHCPs was 68 \u0026plusmn; 20 out of 100. Among the assessed satisfaction domains, the highest mean score was observed for patient satisfaction (79 \u0026plusmn; 25), followed by management support (72 \u0026plusmn; 23). Both work environment and quality of care received identical mean scores of 68, with standard deviations of \u0026plusmn;21 and \u0026plusmn;22, respectively. The lowest mean score was recorded for general satisfaction (58 \u0026plusmn; 19) (Table 6).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 6: Healthcare practitioner (HCP) satisfaction score per domain\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 228px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSatisfaction domain\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 192px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eScore out of 100\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSD\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 228px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePatient Satisfaction\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 192px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn;25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 228px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupporting Management\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 192px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e72\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn;23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 228px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWork Environment\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 192px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn;21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 228px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQuality Of Provided Care\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 192px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn;22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 228px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGeneral Satisfaction\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 192px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn;19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.8 Factors influencing job satisfaction among HCPs\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong the 103 HCPs, the most frequently reported factor influencing job satisfaction was supporting management, as cited by 84 participants (81.6 %). This was followed by the work environment, which was reported by 82 participants (79.6%), and the quality of care provided by 66 participants (64.1%). Salary was the least reported factor, cited by 63 participants (61.2 %) (Figure 2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.9 Comparisons of HCP satisfaction total score by sociodemographic characteristics\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA statistically significant difference in mean satisfaction scores was observed between Saudi and non-Saudi HCPs (p = 0.011). Additionally, profession was a significant factor, with a notable difference in satisfaction levels between physicians and nurses (p = 0.036). In contrast, no significant differences in satisfaction scores were identified across other sociodemographic variables, including age, sex, marital status, and years of work experience (Table 7).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 7: Comparisons of healthcare practitioner (HCP) satisfaction total score by sociodemographic characteristics\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" WIDTH=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 174px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHCP category\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSD\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eP. Value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 174px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAge\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u0026ndash;30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31\u0026ndash;40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41\u0026ndash;50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026gt;50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65.95\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e73.67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.332\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 174px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSex\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e64.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.188\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 174px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNationality\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSaudi\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNon-Saudi\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e66.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e83.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.011*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 174px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMarital status\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSingle\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarried\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDivorced/ Widowed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e69.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67.66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e64.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.881\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 174px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProfession\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhysician\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNurse\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e64.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e72.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.036*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 174px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWork experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUp to 1 year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u0026ndash;4 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ge; 5 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e66.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e62.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e71.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.95\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.164\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDependent variable: Overall HCP satisfaction score\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSD refers to standard deviation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e* P. value \u0026le; 0.05 based on t- test and one way analysis of variance\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3.10 Multivariate analysis of HCP satisfaction\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the linear regression analysis of HCP satisfaction, after adjusting for other covariates in the model, nationality was significantly associated with mean satisfaction scores. Non-Saudi professionals reported a significantly higher mean satisfaction score than their Saudi counterparts, with a mean difference of 26.9 points (95% CI: 13.445\u0026ndash;40.423). Sex was also a significant predictor, with male HCPs reporting higher satisfaction than females by an average of 10.030 points (95% CI: 1.879\u0026ndash;18.181). Moreover, nurses exhibited significantly greater satisfaction than physicians, with a mean difference of 10.7 points (95% CI: 3.134\u0026ndash;18.324) as shown in Table 8.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 8: Multivariate analysis of healthcare practitioner (HCP) satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" WIDTH=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnstandardized Coefficients\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 220px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95% Confidence interval for B\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModel\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUpper Bound\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLower Bound\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.217\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.498\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54.936\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNationality\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSaudi (Reference)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNon-Saudi\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.934\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.445\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40.423\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSex\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale (Reference)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.030\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.016*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.879\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.181\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProfession\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhysician (Reference)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNurse\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.729\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.006*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.134\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.324\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDependent variable: Overall HCP satisfaction score\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e* P \u0026lt; 0.05, based on linear regression\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn this cross-sectional analytical study, we assessed the satisfaction levels among patients and HCPs in UCCs in Saudi Arabia, as well as the factors associated with satisfaction levels. The overall patient satisfaction score was 72 out of 100, indicating a generally favorable perception of urgent care services. This finding aligns with the results of Howard et al. (2007), who reported a satisfaction score of 4.7 out of 7 among patients attending walk-in clinics in Ontario [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. In contrast, a study by Arain et al. (2013) reported high satisfaction levels (86\u0026ndash;93%) among patients using walk-in services in the United Kingdom, indicating that they were highly or fairly satisfied [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. This variation may be attributed to differences in the healthcare system, population characteristics, or the measurement tool employed. Furthermore, our data were collected in December, a typically high-demand winter season, when healthcare facilities often experience overcrowding, potentially leading to an underestimation of satisfaction levels.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study showed variation among satisfaction domains. General satisfaction was the highest-rated domain with a score of 75 out of 100, whereas communication with the medical team scored the lowest, at 68 out of 100. Similar findings were reported by Almanaah et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e] that the overall satisfaction levels of patients attending urgent care clinics in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, varied across different dimensions of care. Precisely, interactions with healthcare providers received moderate satisfaction ratings of 34\u0026ndash;36% [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, the current study demonstrated a significant association between patient satisfaction and nationality, with non-Saudi patients reporting higher satisfaction levels than Saudis. In contrast, previous studies have generally found no such association, raising questions about the potential differences in cultural backgrounds and expectations. Notably, the high variation in the sample size between Saudi and non-Saudi participants in this study may have contributed to the observed variation in satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother factor associated with patient satisfaction was the number of prior UCC visits. A significant difference in satisfaction was observed between first-time visitors and those with five or more visits. This finding contrasts with the results of Arain et al., who reported no difference in satisfaction between first-time and repeat users [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. The discrepancy may be explained by the substantial variation in overall satisfaction levels between the two studies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn a related context, the current study showed that patients choose UCCs over EDs because of their ease of access. This finding is consistent with those of other studies that highlighted accessibility as one of the main reasons for this preference. Other studies also addressed accessibility to services without a previous appointment as one of the main reasons for patients attending walk-in clinics [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the context of HCP satisfaction, although the overall mean satisfaction score was lower than that of the patients, it still reflected a positive perception, achieving only 68 out of 100. The patient satisfaction domain predominantly influenced HCP satisfaction, with a score of 79 out of 100; however, the general satisfaction domain ranked the lowest, with a mean score of only 58 out of 100. Furthermore, factors related to management support and the work environment were identified as the primary contributors to job satisfaction among HCPs. Sex, profession, and nationality were statistically significant variables affecting satisfaction levels.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese findings are in agreement with those of AlJumail \u0026amp; Rabbani [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e], with over 50% of HCPs working in primary healthcare centers in Qassim, Saudi Arabia, having ambivalent satisfaction, with males being more satisfied, although it was statistically insignificant. By contrast, Saudi HCPs and physicians were more satisfied with their jobs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSimilar findings were observed by Halawani et al. (2021) among HCPs in Saudi Arabia, where patient satisfaction significantly affected participants\u0026rsquo; satisfaction with their job [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. Similarly, poor management was the factor that affected the quality of the care provided. However, overall job satisfaction was neutral to low, which is inconsistent with the findings of the current study. Additionally, female HCPs showed higher satisfaction than males, whereas professions showed no difference in satisfaction among HCPs, which does not align with the findings of this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur results also agree with Al Juhani \u0026amp; Kishk (2006), with non-Saudi HCPs working in Al-Madinah, Saudi Arabia, showing higher satisfaction than their Saudi counterparts; however, in contrast to our findings, physicians seemed to be more satisfied than nurses, although an overall unfavorable job satisfaction was observed among HCPs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe difference in findings regarding the level of satisfaction and factors influencing job satisfaction might be explained by the differences in the nature of work between urgent care and PHC, as well as hospitals. Moreover, organizational support, operating conditions, co-workers, pay, workload, and communication can influence satisfaction with healthcare [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA notable strength of our study is the dual focus on patient and HCP satisfaction. While many studies prioritize patient perspectives, we deliberately included HCPs to provide a comprehensive evaluation of service quality. This inclusive approach offers a fuller understanding of the dynamics within urgent care environments. Additionally, using linear regression helped control for potential confounding factors, strengthening our findings. However, like all research endeavors, our study is subject to certain limitations, particularly when evaluating satisfaction in urgent care settings, where judgment may be compromised by immediate health concerns or prolonged waiting times, which could lead to an underestimation of the satisfaction levels compared with those observed in other studies.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn summary, our study revealed a generally favorable perception of urgent care services among patients attending UCCs; notably, non-Saudi and first-time visitors expressed higher satisfaction than their counterparts. However, HCPs exhibited a comparatively lower level of satisfaction than the patients; nevertheless, this still reflects an overall positive perception. Additionally, males, non-Saudis, and nurses expressed higher levels of satisfaction than their counterparts. Given the observed satisfaction among patients and HCPs, our findings support the expansion of UCCs. Further research is warranted to examine the satisfaction, needs, and demands of both groups, particularly within the urgent care context, by incorporating additional factors and variables not addressed in this study. This comprehensive approach will lead to the provision of high-quality urgent care services that adequately meet the expectations of Saudi Vision 2030.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eUCC, urgent care centers; HCP, healthcare practitioners; ED, emergency department AAUCM,\u003cins cite=\"mailto:mai%20alharbi\" datetime=\"2025-07-17T17:54\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/ins\u003eAmerican Academy of Urgent Care Medicine\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThis cross-sectional study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval was obtained from the Al-Madinah Health Cluster Institutional Review Board (IRB log No: 24-129), approval date December 9, 2024. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation in the study, clearly stating that participation was optional; participants had the right to withdraw at any time, and all collected data were kept confidential.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials:\u003c/strong\u003e All data collected and analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author upon request\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests:\u003c/strong\u003e The authors declare no conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u003c/strong\u003e This research received no external funding\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026rsquo; Contributions:\u003c/strong\u003e Conceptualization, M.T.A and A.M.A ; methodology, M.T.A and A.A.A; software, M.T.A and H.M.A; validation, A.A.A and H.M.A; formal analysis, M.T.A and A.T.A; data curation, H.M.A and A.M.A ; writing\u0026mdash;original draft preparation, M.T.A and A.T.A; writing\u0026mdash;review and editing, M.T.A and A.A.A.; supervision, A.A.A.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments:\u003c/strong\u003e The authors would like to express their gratitude to Dr.Omar Aljuhoney and Dr. Abdulqodos Abdulrhman, Family medicine consultants, who assisted in validating the questionnaire. Special thanks to Professor Sami Abdo Al-Dubai for his contributions to the analysis and to Editage.com for their assistance with English language editing for this article.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaudi Vision 2030. \u003cem\u003eNational Transformation Program.\u003c/em\u003e https://www.vision2030.gov.sa. Accessed 20 June 2025.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinistry of Health. Saudi Arabia; 2020. Health Sector Transformation. https://www.moh.gov.sa. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeaders in the Field of Urgent Care Medicine; 2023. https://aaucm.org/. [ Dec; 2023 ]. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCoster JE, Turner JK, Bradbury D, Cantrell A. Why do people choose emergency and urgent care services? A rapid review utilizing a systematic literature search and narrative synthesis. Acad Emerg Med. 2017;24:1137-49. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlbalahi NM, Al Bargawi M, Kofi M. Awareness and utilization of urgent care services among patients attending al-Wazarat PHCC in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 2020.\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003eJ Family Med Prim Care\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e 2021;10:4452-62. Epub. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAsamrew N, Endris AA, Tadesse M. Level of patient satisfaction with inpatient services and its determinants: A study of a Specialized Hospital in Ethiopia. J Environ Public Health\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e 2020;2020:2473469. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBleich SN, Ozaltin E, Murray CJL. How does satisfaction with the healthcare system relate to patient experience?\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003eHealth Aff. 2009;28:1184-95. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHewitt J, et al. The Impact of Patient Satisfaction on Health Outcomes: A systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2020;25:107-16. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarrison DA, Newman DA, Roth PL. How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Acad Manag J. 2006;49:305-25. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlkhateeb M, Althabaiti K, Ahmed S, L\u0026ouml;vestad S, Khan J. A Systematic Review of the Determinants of Job Satisfaction in Healthcare Workers in Health Facilities in Gulf Cooperation Council countries.\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003eGlob Health Action. 2025;18:2479910.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSinsky CA, Willard-Grace R, Schutzbank AM, Sinsky TA, Margolius D, Bodenheimer T. In search of joy in practice: A report of 27 high- performing primary care practices.\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003eAnn Fam Med. 2016;14:425-31. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBorrill C, West MA, Shapiro D, Rees A. Team working and effectiveness in health care.\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003eBr J Health Care. 2000;6:364-71. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShin JI, Lee E. The effect of social capital on job satisfaction and quality of care among hospital nurses in South Korea. J Nurs Manag. 2016;24:934-42. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHalawani LA, Halawani MA, Beyari GM. Job satisfaction among Saudi healthcare workers and its impact on the quality of health services.\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003eJ Family Med Prim Care. 2021;10:1873-81. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYee T, Lechner AE, Boukus ER. The surge in urgent care centers: emergency department alternative or costly convenience? Res Brief. 2013;(26):1-6. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlhajri SM, Aljehani NM, El Dalatony MM, Alsuwayt SS, Alhumaidany TM, Aldossary MS. Patients\u0026apos; satisfaction with the quality of services at primary Healthcare Centers in Saudi Arabia. Cureus. 2023;15:e45066. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlmass A, Aljohani HM, Alhaqbani RM, Alromih AM, Hadal S, Abozaid HS. Patient satisfaction with quality of care at the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Cureus. 2022;14:e32102. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHoward M, Goertzen J, Hutchison B, Kaczorowski J, Morris K. Patient satisfaction with care for urgent health problems: A survey of family practice patients. Ann Fam Med. 2007;5:419-24. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArain M, Nicholl J, Campbell M. Patients\u0026rsquo; experience and satisfaction with GP led walk-in centres in the UK; A cross-sectional study.\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003eBMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:142.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlmanaah MA, Alfarraj JF, Kofi M. Patient satisfaction in urgent care clinics among attendants in PHCs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. \u003cem\u003eEur.\u003c/em\u003e Appl Sci. 2025;3:63-76.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSavira F, Frith M, Aditya CJ, Randall S, White N, Giddy A, et al. Urgent care centres for reducing the demand on emergency departments: A scoping review of published quantitative and qualitative studies. Med J Aust. 2025;222:450-61.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlJumail E, Rabbani U. Job satisfaction among primary health care workers in Buraidah, Qassim, Saudi Arabia\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e Med. 2021;19:27-33. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAl Juhani AM, Kishk NA. Job satisfaction among primary health care physicians and nurses in al-Madinah al-Munawwara. J Egypt Public Health Assoc. 2006;81:165-80.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-health-services-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"bhsr","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Health Services Research](http://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/BHSR/default.aspx","title":"BMC Health Services Research","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"patient satisfaction, healthcare practitioner, urgent care centers, Saudi Arabia","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7157868/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7157868/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eUrgent care centers offer a timely alternative to prolonged waiting times in emergency departments. Patient satisfaction is a key indicator of service quality, while healthcare practitioner satisfaction is essential for system efficiency and performance. This study aimed to assess the quality of urgent care services by assessing the satisfaction levels among patients and healthcare practitioners and identifying associated factors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA cross-sectional analytical study was conducted using two validated, self-administered questionnaires to assess satisfaction levels and related factors among patients and healthcare practitioners. Student\u0026rsquo;s t-test and one-way analysis of variance were employed to compare mean satisfaction scores, while the chi-squared test was used to analyze categorical variables. Linear regression analysis identified factors associated with satisfaction. A p-value\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.05 was considered statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA total of 425 patients and 103 healthcare practitioners were recruited from urgent care centers. The mean satisfaction score was 72\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10 among patients and 68\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;20 among healthcare practitioners. In the regression analysis of sociodemographic variables, higher patient satisfaction was significantly associated with being non-Saudi and a first-time visitor. Among healthcare practitioners, higher satisfaction was associated with being non-Saudi, male, and working in a nursing role. Easy accessibility was the most influential factor in patients\u0026rsquo; preference for urgent care centers over emergency departments.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusion\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur findings support the expansion of urgent care centers, given the high satisfaction reported by both patients and healthcare practitioners, including physicians and nurses. However, further evaluation of these services is warranted, incorporating additional factors and variables not addressed in this study.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Satisfaction of patients and healthcare practitioners with the services provided by urgent care centers in Saudi Arabia, 2024: a cross-sectional study","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-22 12:07:54","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7157868/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-10-08T14:51:07+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-26T09:01:19+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-26T08:38:08+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"197141413117405368295328829324529885379","date":"2025-08-22T07:46:45+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"11378922821167121067816682484008831351","date":"2025-08-20T05:39:27+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-17T14:52:47+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"209548649564778725470395996580874487022","date":"2025-08-17T11:04:42+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"337047749498120730347167237577130834230","date":"2025-08-16T16:20:12+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"66333246813598610777302252956649656816","date":"2025-08-14T11:40:01+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-08-14T11:21:37+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-08-13T06:23:47+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-07-22T18:11:26+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-07-22T13:34:24+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Health Services Research","date":"2025-07-22T13:31:40+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-health-services-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"bhsr","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Health Services Research](http://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/BHSR/default.aspx","title":"BMC Health Services Research","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"8e78e346-0a9f-426d-b186-694d92838535","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 22nd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-07T16:39:33+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-22 12:07:54","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7157868","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7157868","identity":"rs-7157868","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}