Assesses satisfaction with Wasfaty system in Bisha, indicating high user approval.
BACKGROUND: Electronic prescribing systems like Saudi Arabia's Wasfaty service are central to digital healthcare transformation, aiming to improve safety, efficiency, and patient experience. While nationally implemented, assessing local user satisfaction is critical for optimizing the service. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate patient experience and satisfaction with the Wasfaty electronic prescription service and to examine associations with sociodemographic and health-related factors. METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 407 Wasfaty users in Bisha, Saudi Arabia. Data were collected via a structured questionnaire using a 5-point Likert scale. Satisfaction scores were calculated as composite means and categorized as low, moderate, or high. Associations were analyzed using Pearson's Chi-square and exact probability tests. RESULTS: Overall satisfaction was high across all domains (mean scores: pharmacy environment 3.9 ± 1.0; pharmacists 4.1 ± 1.1; Wasfaty system 4.1 ± 0.9). The majority of participants reported high satisfaction (pharmacy: 66.1%; pharmacists: 74.1%; Wasfaty: 71.7%). Female gender and younger age (18-30 years) were significantly associated with higher satisfaction in most domains (P < 0.05). Educational level, chronic disease status, and frequency of Wasfaty use were not significantly associated with satisfaction levels. CONCLUSIONS: Users in Bisha are highly satisfied with the Wasfaty service, particularly with pharmacist interaction and system usability. The significant disparities by age and gender highlight the need for tailored interventions, such as improved digital support for older adults and more targeted patient engagement strategies for male users, to ensure equitable service quality and support the ongoing success of Saudi Arabia's e-prescribing initiative.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alaklabi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: