ArticleBMC health services research2019
Adaption and validation of Nijmegen continuity questionnaire to recognize the influencing factors of continuity of care for hypertensive patients in China.
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 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding Gaps in the Hypertension and Diabetes Care Cascade: Systematic Scoping Review.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
- Continuity of primary care for type 2 diabetes and hypertension and its association with health outcomes and disease control: insights from Central Vietnam.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Integration measurement and its applications in low- and middle-income country health systems: a scoping review.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Measuring continuity of ambulatory cardiovascular care: a cross-sectional study on the applicability of the Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire in Germany.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Continuity of care experienced by patients in a multi-institutional pancreatic care network: a pilot study.BMC health services research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundContinuity of care (COC) has become a primary point of concern for care providers in both developed and developing countries, which is regarded as the "cornerstone of care" and an "essential element" of good health care. A robust and proper instrument is of necessity to identify problems and evaluate intervention aimed at improving continuity of care. This study aimed to adapt Nijmegen continuity questionnaire (NCQ) into a Chinese version (NCQ-C) and to delineate the status of COC as well as explore its influencing factors for hypertensive patients in China.
methodsA forward-back-translation procedure was adopted for the determination of the adaption of NCQ. Then a total of 448 patients completed questionnaires and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). Proper indexes were calculated to test the reliability and validity of NCQ-C. Logistic analysis were used to detect the influencing factors of COC.
resultsThe NCQ-C had excellent intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.855 and internal consistency of seven dimensions varied from 0.907 to 0.944. The item-content validity index ranged from 0.71 to 1.00. For construct validity, seven-factor structure was confirmed as original questionnaire and all the fit indices indicated acceptable levels. Gender, education level, medical insurance and frequency of family visits, blood pressure level, depression status as well as general health perception were demonstrated to be statistically related to COC.
conclusionsIn addition, all the parameters of ABPM were negatively significant with COC. The NCQ-C has shown acceptable level of reliability and validity. The related factors of COC should arouse care providers' attention.
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.