Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30486790›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2018

Development of the Japanese version of the general practice assessment questionnaire: measurement of patient experience and testing of data quality.

Tsunetaka Kijima, Kenju Akai, Akira Matsushita, Tsuyoshi Hamano, Keiichi Onoda, Shozo Yano, Toru Nabika, Yutaka Ishibashi, Shunichi Kumakura

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors.

Tsunetaka KijimaDepartment of General Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Shimane University, 89-1, Enya-cho, Izumo-shi, Shimane, 693-8501, Japan. tunekijima@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-3892-8459
Kenju AkaiCentre for Community-based Healthcare Research and Education, Shimane University, 89-1, Enya-cho, Izumo-shi, Shimane, 693-8501, Japan.
Akira MatsushitaNagi Family Clinic, Tsuyama Family Clinic, Yunogou Family Clinic, Family Practice Centre of Okayama, 292-1, Toyosawa, Nagi-cho, Katsuta-gun, Okayama, 708-1323, Japan.
Tsuyoshi HamanoDepartment of Sports Sociology and Health Sciences, Faculty of Sociology, Kyoto Sangyo University, Kamigamomotoyama, Kita-ku, Kyoto-shi, Kyoto, 603-8555, Japan.
Keiichi OnodaDepartment of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Shimane University, 89-1, Enya-cho, Izumo-shi, Shimane, 693-8501, Japan.
Shozo YanoDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Shimane University, 89-1, Enya-cho, Izumo-shi, Shimane, 693-8501, Japan.
Toru NabikaDepartment of Functional Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Shimane University, 89-1, Enya-cho, Izumo-shi, Shimane, 693-8501, Japan.
Yutaka IshibashiDepartment of General Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Shimane University, 89-1, Enya-cho, Izumo-shi, Shimane, 693-8501, Japan.
Shunichi KumakuraDepartment of Medical Education and Research, Faculty of Medicine, Shimane University, 89-1, Enya-cho, Izumo-shi, Shimane, 693-8501, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhysicians' interpersonal performance is critical in medical practice, especially primary care practice. The General Practice Assessment Questionnaire (GPAQ) was developed in the United Kingdom to evaluate the quality of primary care from the viewpoint of patients. This questionnaire highlights the evaluation of interpersonal skills and interactions between physicians and patients. Though several other tools also exist to evaluate primary care quality, the GPAQ has several distinctive evaluation items, covering receptionists, access to primary care, and enablement (patients' understanding of self-care and of their own health after consultation). Our purpose was to develop and validate a Japanese version of the GPAQ.

methodsThis cross-sectional study tested the validity and reliability of the Japanese version of the questionnaire. We translated the original GPAQ into Japanese and assessed its reliability and validity among patients aged ≥20 years at five rural primary care centres located in Shimane and Okayama prefectures, Japan. We also examined its internal reliability using Cronbach's alpha coefficient and construct validity-including item-scale correlations, item-other scale correlations, and inter-scale correlations. Moreover, we examined correlations between each score and overall satisfaction using Spearman's correlation coefficient for criterion-related validity.

resultsThe translated version of the GPAQ was administered, and we received 252 responses (mean age: 68 ± 12.3 years, male: 42.9%); all data were analysed. The translated questionnaire showed good reliability and validity, with Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.79-0.92 for all scales, and satisfactory item-scale, item-other scale, and inter-scale correlations. Correlations with overall satisfaction were strong (Spearman's correlation coefficients: 0.31-0.38) for all scales except 'continuity of care'.

conclusionsThe Japanese version of the GPAQ was acceptable, reliable, and valid. This could be a useful instrument to evaluate key areas of primary care performance in Japan, particularly physicians' communication skills. Further work is required to evaluate its utility in urban areas.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionPhysician-Patient RelationsQuality of Health CareTranslationsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesData AccuracyFamily PracticeFemaleHumansJapanLanguageMaleMiddle AgedGeneral practice assessment questionnaireInterpersonal performancePhysician-patient communicationPrimary careQuality

Identifiers

PMID30486790
PMCPMC6264598

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.