ArticleAfrican journal of primary health care & family medicine2018
Development and validation of a tool to measure patient experience in chronic disease care.
Article in African journal of primary health care & family medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The content and processes of patient-derived quality of care indicators for people living with multiple long-term conditions (MLTC): A scoping review.Journal of multimorbidity and comorbidityReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is a global increase in the prevalence of non-communicable diseases and a growing understanding that patients need to be involved in their care. Patient experience should be assessed and the information used to improve on the planning and delivery of health services.
aimThis study described the development and validation of a patient-reported experience measure (PREM) tool which is appropriate for the South African context, to assess self-reported patient experience of chronic care.
settingThe study was conducted at four primary health care facilities in the Cape Town Metropole.
methodsThis was a validity and reliability study with multiple phases to develop and determine the psychometric properties of a novel tool. It consisted of three phases, namely: Phase 1 - Consensus Validity; Phase 2 - Face Validity; Phase 3 - Reliability. Phase 1 consisted of an expert panel reaching consensus on a draft tool. Phase 2a consisted of qualitative semi-structured interviews and cognitive interviews. Phase 3 tested the internal consistency of the tool, the time necessary to complete, as well as floor and ceiling effects with 200 questionnaires.
resultsThe process described resulted in a final questionnaire with n = 10 items in three languages that was easily understood by patients. Internal consistency was determined with the overall Cronbach's alpha 0.86. This PREM has been named Chronic Care Assessment of Patient Experience.
conclusionUsing best practice guidance in tool construction and validation, we delivered a PREM with the potential to improve the quality of care from the perspective of patients. Implementation studies are now required to determine how best to use this tool in routine practice.
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.