Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28218984›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2017

Closing the patient experience chasm: A two-level validation of the Consumer Quality Index Inpatient Hospital Care.

Alina Smirnova, Kiki M J M H Lombarts, Onyebuchi A Arah, Cees P M van der Vleuten

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The first steps in the development of a cancer-specific patient-reported experience measure item bank (PREM-item bank): towards dynamic evaluation of experiences.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Closing the patient experience chasm: A two-level validation of the Consumer Quality Index Inpatient Hospital Care.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017
    Article
  12. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Alina SmirnovaDepartment of Educational Development and Research, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4491-3007
Kiki M J M H LombartsCenter for Evidence-Based Education, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Onyebuchi A ArahDepartment of Epidemiology, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, USA.
Cees P M van der VleutenDepartment of Educational Development and Research, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam · NLMaastricht University · NLUCLA Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvaluation of patients' health care experiences is central to measuring patient-centred care. However, different instruments tend to be used at the hospital or departmental level but rarely both, leading to a lack of standardization of patient experience measures.

objectiveTo validate the Consumer Quality Index (CQI) Inpatient Hospital Care for use on both department and hospital levels.

designUsing cross-sectional observational data, we investigated the internal validity of the questionnaire using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), and the generalizability of the questionnaire for use at the department and hospital levels using generalizability theory. SETTING AND

participants22924 adults hospitalized for ≥24 hours between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2014 in 23 Dutch hospitals (515 department evaluations). MAIN VARIABLE: CQI Inpatient Hospital Care questionnaire.

resultsCFA results showed a good fit on individual level (CFI=0.96, TLI=0.95, RMSEA=0.04), which was comparable between specialties. When scores were aggregated to the department level, the fit was less desirable (CFI=0.83, TLI=0.81, RMSEA=0.06), and there was a significant overlap between communication with doctors and explanation of treatment subscales. Departments and hospitals explained ≤5% of total variance in subscale scores. In total, 4-8 departments and 50 respondents per department are needed to reliably evaluate subscales rated on a 4-point scale, and 10 departments with 100-150 respondents per department for binary subscales. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionsThe CQI Inpatient Hospital Care is a valid and reliable questionnaire to evaluate inpatient experiences in Dutch hospitals provided sufficient sampling is done. Results can facilitate meaningful comparisons and guide quality improvement activities in individual departments and hospitals.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCommunicationCross-Sectional StudiesFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient-Centered CarePhysician-Patient RelationsPsychometricsQuality Indicators, Health CareConfirmatory factor analysisConsumer Quality Index (CQI)generalizability theorynational surveyspatient-centered carequality assessment

Identifiers

PMID28218984
PMCPMC5600232
OpenAlexW2590734584

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.