Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26230633›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2016

Development and psychometric evaluation of a measure to evaluate the quality of integrated care: the Patient Assessment of Integrated Elderly Care.

Ronald J Uittenbroek, Sijmen A Reijneveld, Roy E Stewart, Sophie L W Spoorenberg, Hubertus P H Kremer, Klaske Wynia

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. The Partners in Health scale for older adults: design and examination of its psychometric properties in a Dutch population of older adults.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ronald J UittenbroekDepartment of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Sijmen A ReijneveldDepartment of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Roy E StewartDepartment of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Sophie L W SpoorenbergDepartment of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Hubertus P H KremerDepartment of Neurology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Klaske WyniaDepartment of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Groningen · NLUniversity of Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNovel population-based integrated care services are being developed to adequately serve the growing number of elderly people. Suitable, reliable and valid measurement instruments are needed to evaluate the quality of care delivered.

objectiveTo develop a measure to evaluate the quality of integrated care from the perspective of elderly people, the Patient Assessment of Integrated Elderly Care (PAIEC), and then to assess its psychometric properties. METHODS/

designAfter the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care was adapted to the PAIEC, a cross-sectional postal-survey study was performed among 223 elderly people who received integrated elderly care and support. We assessed the factor structure, internal consistency, known groups and divergent validity using robust nonparametric tests.

resultsMean age of participants was 83 years (standard deviation 4.7), and 69% was female. The original five-factor model was rejected; a good fit was found for a three-factor model, when excluding the item on patients' satisfaction with care. The PAIEC and its subscales showed good internal consistency (ordinal alphas > 0.90). Known-groups validity was supported regarding number of medications, prevalence of chronic conditions and home care received. No differences were found between groups based on sociodemographic aspects. Divergent validity was supported by low correlations (Spearman's rank correlation coefficients < 0.30) between PAIEC scales and measures of quality of life, complexity of care needs and frailty.

conclusionThe PAIEC seems to have considerable potential as a reliable and valid measurement instrument that evaluates quality of integrated care and support from the perspective of elderly people.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionQuality of Health CareAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedFemaleHealth Services for the AgedHumansMaleNetherlandsPsychometricsSurveys and QuestionnairesChronic Care Modelelderly peoplepatient assessmentpsychometric propertiesquality of care

Identifiers

PMID26230633
PMCPMC5042070
OpenAlexW2145743334

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.