ArticleBMJ open2017
The Norwegian patient experiences with GP questionnaire (PEQ-GP): reliability and construct validity following a national survey.
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 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- What patients want from access to UK general practice: systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient-reported experience measures.Health services research · 2019Pooled it
- Trial
- Case-mix adjustments of patient reported experience measures in general practice: variations between Norwegian municipalities.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- Continuity of care and patient-reported experiences in Norwegian general practice: are they linked, and does the measurement of continuity matter?Family practice · 2026Article
- Postpartum check-ups with general practitioners in Norway: a cross-sectional survey of attendance, content and patient satisfaction.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Healthcare users' evaluations of general practice: a survey among Danish men aged 45-70 years.BJGP open · 2025Article
- Factors associated with patients' experience of accessibility to general practice: results from a national survey in Norway.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Multimorbidity and patient experience with general practice: A national cross-sectional survey in Norway.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Feedback reports to the general practitioner (GP) on the patients' experiences: are GPs interested, and is this interest associated with GP factors and patient experience scores?Family practice · 2023Article
- Russian-language translation and cultural adaptation of the Norwegian 'Patient Experience Questionnaire'.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- 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
- Patient experiences with general practice in Norway: a comparison of immigrant groups and the majority population following a national survey.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- The Adolescent Patient Experiences of Diabetes Care Questionnaire (APEQ-DC): Reliability and Validity in a Study Based on Data from the Norwegian Childhood Diabetes Registry.Patient related outcome measures · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to test the reliability and validity of a new questionnaire for measuring patient experiences with general practitioners (PEQ-GP) following a national survey.
settingPostal survey among patients on any of 500 GPs patient lists in Norway. GPs were stratified by practice size and geographical criteria.
participants4964 patients who had at least one consultation with their regular GP in the foregoing 12 months were included in the study. The patients were randomly selected after the selection of GPs. 2377 patients (49%) responded to the survey. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The items were assessed for missing data and ceiling effects. Factor structure was assessed using exploratory factor analyses. Reliability was tested with item-total correlation, Cronbach's alpha and test-retest correlations. Item discriminant validity was tested by correlating items with all scales. Construct validity was assessed through associations of scale scores with health status, the patients' general satisfaction with the services, whether the patient had been incorrectly treated by the GP and whether the patient would recommend the GP to others.
resultsItem missing varied from 1.0% to 3.1%, while ceiling effects varied from 16.1% to 45.9%. The factor analyses identified three factors. Reliability statistics for scales based on these three factors, and two theoretically derived scales, showed item-total correlations ranging from 0.63 to 0.85 and Cronbach's alpha values from 0.77 to 0.93. Test-retest correlation for the five scales varied from 0.72 to 0.88. All scales had the expected association with other variables.
conclusionsThe PEQ-GP has good evidence for data quality, internal consistency and construct validity. The PEQ-GP is recommended for use in local, regional and national surveys in Norway, but further studies are needed to assess the instrument's ability to detect differences over time and between different GPs.
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.