ArticleBMJ open2017
Patient Evaluation of Emotional Comfort Experienced (PEECE): developing and testing a measurement instrument.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Considering User Experience and Behavioral Approaches in the Design of mHealth Interventions for Atrial Fibrillation: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Development and validation of a patient experience assessment questionnaire for evaluating hospital care in Iran.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Adaptation and validation of the Chinese version of the Hospice Comfort Questionnaire-Patient (HCQ-P).PeerJ · 2025Article
- An eHealth intervention for patients with a low socioeconomic position during their waiting period preceding cardiac rehabilitation: a randomized feasibility study.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Article
- Article
- Role of Emotional Support and Socio-Cultural Atmosphere on the Experience Caesaran Patients: A Systematic Review.Iranian journal of public health · 2024Review
- Support network: the challenges of ensuring myocardial infarction patients comfort in the critical care unit: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Hospital healthcare experiences of children and young people with life-threatening or life-shortening conditions, and their parents: scoping reviews and resultant conceptual frameworks.BMC pediatrics · 2023Article
- Nurses' healing presence: A panacea for the comfort of acute coronary syndrome patients in CCU, A qualitative study.Nursing open · 2023Article
- Psychometric Evaluation of the Comfort from Companion Animals Scale in a Sexual and Gender Minority Sample.Anthrozoos · 2022Article
- Comfort during the bed bath-A randomised crossover trial on the effect of washing without water versus water and soap in nursing students.Journal of clinical nursing · 2021Review
- The Patient-Reported Experience Measure for Improving qUality of care in Mental health (PREMIUM) project in France: study protocol for the development and implementation strategy.Patient preference and adherence · 2019Article
- The Impact of Chronic Illness on the Patient Experience: Results From a Cross-Sectional Comparative Study in a Comprehensive Tertiary Hospital in China.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
- Adjustment to a New Heart: Concept Analysis Using a Hybrid Model.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe Patient Evaluation of Emotional Comfort Experienced (PEECE) is a 12-item questionnaire which measures the mental well-being state of emotional comfort in patients. The instrument was developed using previous qualitative work and published literature.
designInstrument development.
settingAcute Care Public Hospital, Western Australia.
participantsSample of 374 patients.
interventionsA multidisciplinary expert panel assessed the face and content validity of the instrument and following a pilot study, the psychometric properties of the instrument were explored.
main outcome measuresExploratory and confirmatory factor analysis assessed the underlying dimensions of the PEECE instrument; Cronbach's α was used to determine the reliability; κ was used for test-retest reliability of the ordinal items.
results2 factors were identified in the instrument and named 'positive emotions' and 'perceived meaning'. A greater proportion of male patients were found to report positive emotions compared with female patients. The instrument was found to be feasible, reliable and valid for use with inpatients and outpatients.
conclusionsPEECE was found to be a feasible instrument for use with inpatient and outpatients, being easily understood and completed. Further psychometric testing is recommended.
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.