ArticleBMC health services research2019
Measuring patient and family perceptions of team processes and outcomes in healthcare teams: questionnaire development and psychometric evaluation.
Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review of the characteristics of brief team interventions to clarify roles and improve functioning in healthcare teams.PloS one · 2020Pooled it
- Healthcare team trust, care coordination, and care access among cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions: a mixed method analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Fostering Physician-Patient Partnerships: The Importance of Embracing the Ontological and Epistemological Understandings of Knowledge.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Review
- Team complexity and care coordination for cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions: a mixed methods study.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2025Article
- Measuring Team Functioning During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Perspectives of Cancer Care Team Members.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Clinical Multiteam System Composition and Complexity Among Newly Diagnosed Early-Stage Breast, Colorectal, and Lung Cancer Patients With Multiple Chronic Conditions: A SEER-Medicare Analysis.JCO oncology practice · 2023Article
- Patient and family views of team functioning in primary healthcare teams with nurse practitioners: a survey of patient-reported experience and outcomes.BMC family practice · 2021Article
- Discrepancy in Ratings of Shared Decision Making Between Patients and Health Professionals: A Cross Sectional Study in Mental Health Care.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Team Functioning And Beliefs About Team Effectiveness In Inter-Professional Teams: Questionnaire Development And Validation.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is a lack of validated instruments examining dimensions of team functioning from the perspective of patients and families consistent with a conceptual framework. The study aimed to develop and assess the psychometric properties of the Patient-Perceptions of Team Effectiveness (PTE) questionnaire.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was undertaken in three studies. Data were collected from May-October 2016 for Study 1, April 2018-ongoing for Study 2, and October 2016 to June 2017 for Study 3. Online and paper versions of the self-administered questionnaire were available in English and in French. The initial questionnaire included 41 items. Study 1 included 320 respondents. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach alpha. Face validity (n = 250) was assessed using a structured questionnaire. Content validity was examined using subject matter experts and Spearman's item-total correlations. Construct validity was examined using known group comparisons (i.e., clinical specialty, education, length of follow-up, reason of consultation). Content analysis was used for open-ended questions.
resultsThe questionnaire took 10 to 15 min to complete. Positive assessments were noted for instructions, formatting, font size and logical ordering of questions. In Study 1, reliability indices for the PTE-Overall, Team Processes and Outcomes subscales ranged from 0.72 to 0.84. Item-total correlations ranged from 0.551 to 0.794 (p < 0.001). Differences were noted between clinical specialties, education, length of follow-up, reason of consultation, low and high functioning teams. No differences were noted between English and French language respondents. Psychometric properties were re-assessed in Study 2 and 3 after unclear questions were reworked. Reliability indices for the subscales ranged from 0.76 to 0.94 and differences remained significant between low and high functioning teams.
conclusionThe final 43-item instrument is easy to administer to patients and families. The studies provide evidence of validity to support the propositions in the conceptual framework. The patient-level measures can be aggregated to the team, organizational or system level. The information can be used to assess healthcare team functioning in acute and primary care and determine the role patients and families are playing in teams. Further testing is needed with patients and families who are hospitalized or receiving care from teams in rural areas.
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.