ArticlePatient preference and adherence2016
The Universal Patient Centeredness Questionnaire: scaling approaches to reduce positive skew.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychometric performance of the WHO-5 well-being index in a nationwide sample of inpatients discharged from specialised mental health care.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Development and preliminary testing of a patient reported experience measure for chronic disease patients in Singapore.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Adaptation, further development and evaluation of the measurement properties of the person-centred community care inventory (PERCCI-S) for use in the Swedish municipal health care system.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Development and Assessment of a Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument for Gender-Affirming Care.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Dataset linking women's maternity care experiences with hospital environment and governance in Ireland.Data in brief · 2024Article
- Web-Based Public Ratings of General Practitioners in Norway: Validation Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Patient experiences with general practitioners: psychometric performance of the generic PEQ-GP instrument among patients with chronic conditions.Family practice · 2022Article
- ASK ME!-Routine measurement of patient experience with patient safety in ambulatory care: A mixed-mode survey.PloS one · 2021Article
- Factors Associated With Patient Satisfaction Measured Using a Guttman-Type Scale.Journal of patient experience · 2020Article
- Attempts to Limit Censoring in Measures of Patient Satisfaction.Journal of patient experience · 2020Article
- The acceptance and applicability of a patient-reported experience measurement tool in oncological care: a descriptive feasibility study in northern Germany.BMC health services research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSurveys of patients' experiences typically show results that are indicative of positive experiences. Unbalanced response scales have reduced positive skew for responses to items within the Universal Patient Centeredness Questionnaire (UPC-Q). The objective of this study was to compare the unbalanced response scale with another unbalanced approach to scaling to assess whether the positive skew might be further reduced. PATIENTS AND
methodsThe UPC-Q was included in a patient experience survey conducted at the ward level at six hospitals in Norway in 2015. The postal survey included two reminders to nonrespondents. For patients in the first month of inclusion, UPC-Q items had standard scaling: poor, fairly good, good, very good, and excellent. For patients in the second month, the scaling was more positive: poor, good, very good, exceptionally good, and excellent. The effect of scaling on UPC-Q scores was tested with independent samples
resultsThe response rate was 54.6% (n=4,970). Significantly lower scores were found for all items of the more positively worded scale: UPC-Q total score difference was 7.9 (
conclusionThe more positively worded scaling significantly lowered the mean scores, potentially increasing the sensitivity of the UPC-Q to identify differences over time and between providers. However, none of the groups exhibited large positive skew and ceiling effects, implying that such effects might not be a big measurement problem for either scaling format. We recommend using the standard scaling in surveys producing external indicators for inter-provider comparisons. The more positively worded scaling has greater relevance for local measurement work where the results of patient experience surveys have shown large positive skew, and intra-provider comparison is the primary goal.
Indexed as
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.