ArticleSpringerPlus2016
Test-retest stability of patient experience items derived from the national GP patient survey.
Article in SpringerPlus, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of a Community-University Partnership on the Quality of Life in a Local Community: A Validated Survey.Cureus · 2024Article
- Ongoing Decline in Continuity With GPs in English General Practices: A Longitudinal Study Across the COVID-19 Pandemic.Annals of family medicine · 2024Article
- Reliability of the Brazilian version of the questionnaire on eating and weight patterns-5 (QEWP-5).Eating and weight disorders : EWD · 2021Article
- Assessing and promoting partnership between patients and health-care professionals: Co-construction of the CADICEE tool for patients and their relatives.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- Impact of primary care funding on patient satisfaction: a retrospective longitudinal study of English general practice, 2013-2016.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021Article
- Oral Health-Related Quality of Life After Gastric Bypass Surgery.Obesity surgery · 2020Article
- Directing Improvements in Primary Care Patient Experience through Analysis of Service Quality.Health services research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe validity and reliability of various items on the GP Patient Survey (GPPS) survey have been reported, however stability of patient responses over time has not been tested. The purpose of this study was to determine the test-retest reliability of the core items from the GPPS.
methodsPatients who had recently consulted participating GPs in five general practices across the South West England were sent a postal questionnaire comprising of 54 items concerning their experience of their consultation and the care they received from the GP practice. Patients returning the questionnaire within 3 weeks of mail-out were sent a second identical (retest) questionnaire. Stability of responses was assessed by raw agreement rates and Cohen's kappa (for categorical response items) and intraclass correlation coefficients and means (for ordinal response items).
results348 of 597 Patients returned a retest questionnaire (58.3 % response rate). In comparison to the test phase, patients responding to the retest phase were older and more likely to have white British ethnicity. Raw agreement rates for the 33 categorical items ranged from 66 to 100 % (mean 88 %) while the kappa coefficients ranged from 0.00 to 1.00 (mean 0.53). Intraclass correlation coefficients for the 21 ordinal items averaged 0.67 (range 0.44-0.77).
conclusionsFormal testing of items from the national GP patient survey examining patient experience in primary care highlighted their acceptable temporal stability several weeks following a GP consultation.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.