Skip to main content

Table 2 Satisfaction of Staff of Insurance Companies with Medical Appraisals

From: Satisfaction of staff of Swiss insurance companies with medical appraisals: a cross sectional study

 

Total

Appraisals for disability insurance*

Appraisals for private insurances*

Psychiatric appraisals (mono-disc.)

 

N = 3165

n = 2444

n = 678

n = 1159

Item 1: Inclusion of pre-existing information

    

Sufficiently addressed, No. (%)

2816 (89.0)

2198 (89.9)

584 (86.1)

1012 (87.3)

Not sufficiently addressed, No. (%)

121 (3.8)

88 (3.6)

25 (3.7)

46 (4.0)

No judgement possible, No. (%)

228 (7.2)

158 (6.5)

69 (10.2)

101 (8.7)

Item 2: Formal structure

    

Well structured, No. (%)

2986 (94.3)

2299 (94.1)

651 (96.0)

1070 (92.3)

Badly structured, No. (%)

111 (3.5)

84 (3.4)

21 (3.1)

57 (4.9)

No judgement possible, No. (%)

68 (2.1)

61 (2.5)

6 (0.9)

32 (2.8)

Item 3: Presentation of content

    

Comprehensibly presented, No. (%)

2893 (91.4)

2210 (90.4)#

646 (95.3)#

1050 (90.6)

Not comprehensibly presented, No. (%)

186 (5.9)

156 (6.4)

25 (3.7)

73 (6.3)

No judgement possible, No. (%)

86 (2.7)

78 (3.2)

7 (1.0)

36 (3.1)

Item 4: Response to key questions

    

Response complete, No. (%)

2667 (84.3)

1985 (81.2)#

647 (95.4)#

971 (83.8)

Response not complete, No. (%)

387 (12.2)

357 (14.6)

23 (3.4)

145 (12.5)

No judgement possible, No. (%)

111 (3.5)

102 (4.2)

8 (1.2)

43 (3.7)

Item 5: Conclusions

    

Well founded and comprehensible, No. (%)

2774 (87.6)

2115 (86.5)#

633 (93.4)#

1000 (86.3)

Badly founded and not sufficiently comprehensible, No. (%)

278 (8.8)

228 (9.3)

33 (4.9)

107 (9.2)

No judgement possible, No. (%)

113 (3.6)

101 (4.1)

12 (1.8)

52 (4.5)

Item 6: Additional queries to the assessor

    

No additional queries necessary, No. (%)

2721 (86.0)

2075 (84.9)#

615 (90.7)#

987 (82.2)

Additional queries necessary, No. (%)

241 (7.6)

196 (8.0)

37 (5.5)

85 (7.3)

No judgement possible, No. (%)

203 (6.4)

173 (7.1)

26 (3.8)

87 (7.5)

Item 7: Volume of the appraisal

    

Too short, No. (%)

137 (4.3)

98 (4.0)

32 (4.7)

57 (4.9)

Just as short/as long as necessary, No. (%)

2705 (85.5)

2053 (84.0)#

624 (92.0)#

979 (84.5.0)

Too long, No. (%)

197 (6.2)

171 (7.0)

19 (2.8)

68 (5.9)

No judgement possible, No. (%)

126 (4.0)

122 (5.0)

3 (0.4)

55 (4.7)

Item 8: Time interval for preparation of appraisal

    

Adequately long, No. (%)

2255 (71.2)

1637 (67.0)#

583 (86.0)#

908 (78.3)

Too long, No. (%)

819 (25.9)

737 (30.2)

77 (11.4)

228 (19.7)

No judgement possible, No. (%)

91 (2.9)

70 (2.9)

18 (2.7)

23 (2.0)

Item 9: Is the appraisal „worth its price"? $

    

Yes, No. (%)

1539 (76.4)

1137 (76.0)

375 (78.1)

521 (82.6)

Partly, No. (%)

236 (11.7)

144 (9.6)

87 (18.1)

70 (11.1)

No, No. (%)

55 (2.7)

43 (2.9)

7 (1.5)

16 (2.5)

No judgement possible, No. (%)

185 (9.2)

173 (11.6)

11 (2.3)

24 (3.8)

Item 10: Overall satisfaction

    

Very satisfied, No. (%)

1073 (33.9)

788 (32.2)#

272 (40.1)#

396 (34.2)

Satisfied, No. (%)

1704 (53.8)

1316 (53.8)

373 (55.0)

601 (51.9)

Not satisfied, No. (%)

291 (9.2)

244 (10.0)

32 (4.7)

117 (10.1)

No judgement possible, No. (%)

97 (3.1)

96 (3.9)

1 (0.1)

45 (3.9)

  1. The unit of analysis is the medical appraisal: *Disability insurance (DI) and private insurances (PI) comprise 98.6% of all analysed medical appraisals; #Significant difference between DI and PI (p < 0.05; chi-square test); $Only appraisals included, for which insurance staff was aware of the price.