Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27795898›Full record

ArticleSpringerPlus2016

Test-retest stability of patient experience items derived from the national GP patient survey.

Antoinette F Davey, Martin J Roberts, Luke Mounce, Inocencio Maramba, John L Campbell

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 · 2021
    Article
  5. 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 · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Antoinette F DaveyPrimary Care Research Group, University of Exeter Medical School, St Lukes Campus, Exeter, EX1 2LU UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5118-6912
Martin J RobertsCollaboration for the Advancement of Medical Education Research and Assessment (CAMERA), Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth, UK.
Luke MouncePrimary Care Research Group, University of Exeter Medical School, St Lukes Campus, Exeter, EX1 2LU UK.
Inocencio MarambaNIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC), Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Room N10, ITTC Building, Plymouth Science Park, Derriford, Plymouth, Devon PL6 8BX UK.
John L CampbellPrimary Care Research Group, University of Exeter Medical School, St Lukes Campus, Exeter, EX1 2LU UK.
University of Exeter · GBPeninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry · GBUniversity of Plymouth · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0608-10050
6 · The paper itself

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

PMID27795898
PMCPMC5055510
OpenAlexW2528433270

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.