ArticleBMJ open2020
Patient Continuity of Care Questionnaire in a cardiac sample: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementing alternative estimation methods to evaluate the reliability of Likert-scale instruments.Women's health nursing (Seoul, Korea) · 2024Article
- Development and psychometric properties of a short version of the Patient Continuity of Care Questionnaire.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Continuity of Care and Self-Management among Patients with Stroke: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Study on the Correlation between Continuity of Care and Quality of Life for Patients with Coronary Heart Disease.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEven though continuity is essential after discharge, there is a lack of reliable questionnaires to measure and assess patients' perceptions of continuity of care. The Patient Continuity of Care Questionnaire (PCCQ) addresses the period before and after discharge from hospital. However, previous studies show that the factor structure needs to be confirmed and validated in larger samples, and the aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the PCCQ with focus on factor structure, internal consistency and stability.
designA psychometric evaluation study. The questionnaire was translated into Swedish using a forward-backward technique and culturally adapted through cognitive interviews (n=12) and reviewed by researchers (n=8).
settingData were collected in four healthcare settings in two Swedish counties.
participantsA consecutive sampling procedure included 725 patients discharged after hospitalisation due to angina, acute myocardial infarction, heart failure or atrial fibrillation. MEASUREMENT: To evaluate the factor structure, confirmatory factor analyses based on polychoric correlations were performed (n=721). Internal consistency was evaluated by ordinal alpha. Test-retest reliability (n=289) was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
resultsThe original six-factor structure was overall confirmed, but minor refinements were required to reach satisfactory model fit. The standardised factor loadings ranged between 0.68 and 0.94, and ordinal alpha ranged between 0.82 and 0.95. All subscales demonstrated satisfactory test-retest reliability (ICC=0.76-0.94).
conclusionThe revised version of the PCCQ showed sound psychometric properties and is ready to be used to measure perceptions of continuity of care. High ordinal alpha in some subscales indicates that a shorter version of the questionnaire can be developed.
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.