ArticleCroatian medical journal2017
The EUROPEP questionnaire for patient's evaluation of general practice care: Bulgarian experience.
Article in Croatian medical journal, 2017. 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.
- Content Refinement and Multicenter Validation of the ELIGES Patient Experience Questionnaire Focused on Nursing Care During Hospitalization: Study Protocol.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Service Quality Assessment of Digital Health Solutions in Outpatient Care: Qualitative Item Repository Development Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Review
- Review
- Satisfaction with Health Care Services in the Adult Population of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the COVID-19 Pandemic.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
- Psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the EUROPEP questionnaire.Patient preference and adherence · 2018Article
- Analysis of Patient Satisfaction with Emergency Medical Services.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo validate the Bulgarian EUROPEP-questionnaire and its implementation to measure patient evaluation of general practice care in Bulgarian population.
methodsA multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted at twenty five primary care practices from South-Central Region of Bulgaria. A total of 1000 adult patients aged over 18 years and visiting the practice for more than a year were approached consecutively to take part in the study. The internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the EUROPEP questionnaire were evaluated. To confirm the construct validity of the questionniare, еxplanatory factor analysis was performed.
resultsCronbach'alpha for "clinical behaviour" is 0.95 and for "organisation of care" 0.81. Factor analysis identifed two factors, which accounted for 77.0% of the total variation in these items. On average, 58.7% of respondents rated the level of care received as excellent. The waiting time in the waiting room was the item most poorly rated (33.8%). The item "keeping patients' records and data confidential" was the most highly rated (88.8%). Patients were less satisfied with "providing quick services for urgent health problems" (78.5% excellent or good) and "getting an appropriate for them appointment" (76.2% excellent or good).
conclusionTwo scales with satisfactory psychometric properties were established in the Bulgarian version of the EUROPEP-questionnaire. The study identified areas requiring improvement in general practice, such as reduction in waiting times and obtaining patient's convenience appointment.
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.