Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29391003›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

Qualitative assessment of the primary care outcomes questionnaire: a cognitive interview study.

Mairead Murphy, Sandra Hollinghurst, Chris Salisbury

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Understanding data visualization techniques in qualitative studies used to develop and validate patient-reported outcome measures: a targeted literature review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Creation and validation of the pictorial ecological momentary well-being instrument (EMOWI) for adolescents.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Primary Care Outcomes Questionnaire: psychometric testing of a new instrument.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    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

3 authors.

Mairead MurphyUniversity of Bristol, Centre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. mairead.murphy@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-3550-2727
Sandra HollinghurstUniversity of Bristol, Centre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Chris SalisburyUniversity of Bristol, Centre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Primary Care Outcomes Questionnaire (PCOQ) is a new patient-reported outcome measure designed specifically for primary care. This paper describes the developmental process of improving the item quality and testing the face validity of the PCOQ through cognitive interviews with primary care patients.

methodsTwo formats of the PCOQ were developed and assessed: the PCOQ-Status (which has an adjectival scale) and the PCOQ-Change (which has the same items as the PCOQ-Status, but a transitional scale). Three rounds of cognitive interviews were held with twenty patients from four health centres in Bristol. Patients seeking healthcare were recruited directly by their GP or practice nurse, and others not currently seeking healthcare were recruited from patient participation groups. An adjusted form of Tourangeau's model of cognitive processing was used to identify problems. This contained four categories: general comprehension, temporal comprehension, decision process, and response process. The resultant pattern of problems was used to assess whether the items and scales were working as intended, and to make improvements to the questionnaires.

resultsThe problems identified in the PCOQ-Status reduced from 41 in round one to seven in round three. It was noted that the PCOQ-Status seemed to be capturing a subjective view of health which might not vary with age or long-term conditions. However, as it is designed to be evaluative (measuring change over time) as opposed to discriminative (measuring change between different groups of people), this does not present a problem for validity. The PCOQ-Status was both understood by patients and was face valid. The PCOQ-Change had less face validity, and was misunderstood by three out of six patients in round 1. It was not taken forward after this round.

conclusionsThe cognitive interviews successfully contributed to the development of the PCOQ. Through this study, the PCOQ-Status was found to be well understood by patients, and it was possible to improve comprehension through each round of interviews. The PCOQ-Change was poorly understood and, given that this corroborates existing research, this may call into question the use of transitional questionnaires generally.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultAgedComprehensionFemaleHealth Status IndicatorsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchReproducibility of ResultsCognitive interviewsFace validityFamily practicePatient-Centred carePatient-reported outcomesPatient satisfactionPrimary careQuestionnairesThink-aloudVerbal probing

Identifiers

PMID29391003
PMCPMC5796473

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.