Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30214927›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient experience2018

Codesigning a Measure of Person-Centred Coordinated Care to Capture the Experience of the Patient: The Development of the P3CEQ.

Thavapriya Sugavanam, Ben Fosh, James Close, Richard Byng, Jane Horrell, Helen Lloyd

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient experience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Psychometric properties of the person-centred coordinated care experience questionnaire (P3CEQ) in a Norwegian radiotherapy setting.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2022
    Article
  9. Assessing the experience of person-centred coordinated care of people with chronic conditions in the Netherlands: Validation of the Dutch P3CEQ.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Validation of the person-centred coordinated care experience questionnaire (P3CEQ).International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2019
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Beyond Reading and Understanding: Health Literacy as the Capacity to Act.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Thavapriya SugavanamPlymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth, United Kingdom.
Ben FoshPlymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth, United Kingdom.
James ClosePlymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth, United Kingdom.
Richard ByngPlymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth, United Kingdom.
Jane HorrellPlymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth, United Kingdom.
Helen LloydPlymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2916-1874

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPerson-centred coordinated care (P3C) is a priority for stakeholders (ie, patients, carers, professionals, policy makers). As a part of the development of an evaluation framework for P3C, we set out to identify patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) suitable for routine measurement and feedback during the development of services.

methodsA rapid review of the literature was undertaken to identity existing PREMs suitable for the probing person-centred and/or coordinated care. Of 74 measures identified, 7 met our inclusion criteria. We critically examined these against core domains and subdomains of P3C. Measures were then presented to stakeholders in codesign workshops to explore acceptability, utility, and their strengths/weaknesses.

resultsThe Long-Term Condition 6 questionnaire was preferred for its short length, utility, and tone. However, it lacked key questions in each core domain, and in response to requests from our codesign group, new questions were added to cover consideration as a whole person, coordination, care plans, carer involvement, and a single coordinator. Cognitive interviews, on-going codesign, and mapping to core P3C domains resulted in the refinement of the questionnaire to 11 items with 1 trigger question. The 11-item modified version was renamed the P3C Experiences Questionnaire.

conclusionsDue to a dearth of brief measures available to capture people's experience of P3C for routine practice, an existing measure was modified using an iterative process of adaption and validation through codesign workshops. Next steps include psychometric validation and modification for people with dementia and learning difficulties.

Indexed as

clinician–patient relationshippatient expectationspatient feedbackpatient/relationship centered skillsquality improvementrelationships in health caresurvey data

Identifiers

PMID30214927
PMCPMC6134538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.