Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30612571›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Measuring patient and family perceptions of team processes and outcomes in healthcare teams: questionnaire development and psychometric evaluation.

Kelley Kilpatrick, Éric Tchouaket, Lysane Paquette, Claudel Guillemette, Mira Jabbour, François Desmeules, Véronique Landry, Nicolas Fernandez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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 · 2026
    Article
  3. 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 · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors.

Kelley KilpatrickSusan E. French Chair in Nursing Research and Innovative Practice, Ingram School of Nursing, McGill University, Montréal, Canada. kelley.kilpatrick@mcgill.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2137-6560
Éric TchouaketUniversité du Québec en Outaouais, Saint-Jérôme, Canada.
Lysane PaquetteFaculty of Nursing, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada.
Claudel GuillemetteCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l'Est-de-l'Île-de-Montréal-Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont (CIUSSS-EMTL), Montréal, Canada.
Mira JabbourCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l'Est-de-l'Île-de-Montréal-Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont (CIUSSS-EMTL), Montréal, Canada.
François DesmeulesSchool of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada.
Véronique LandryFaculty of Nursing, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada.
Nicolas FernandezFaculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada.

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research 363528Québec Network on Nursing Intervention Research 1013255
6 · The paper itself

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

AdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health CareFemaleHealth Services ResearchHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Care TeamPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPerceptionPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesInter-professionalNurse practitionerPatient-reported experience measurePatient-reported outcomePerceptions of team effectivenessProcessQuestionnaire developmentReliabilityTeam functioningValidity

Identifiers

PMID30612571
PMCPMC6322340

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.