ArticleBMJ open2020
Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the Person-Centred Care Assessment Tool.
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, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Person-centered care assessment tool with a focus on quality healthcare: a systematic review of psychometric properties.BMC psychology · 2024Pooled it
- Reliability Generalization Study of the Person-Centered Care Assessment Tool.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Pooled it
- Beyond the Bedside: How Moral Sensitivity and Self-Efficacy Shape Person-Centered Care in Nursing.Journal of nursing management · 2025Article
- Similarities and differences between China and Sweden regarding the core features of palliative care for people aged 60 or older: a systematic scoping review.BMC palliative care · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to test a Chinese cross-cultural adaptation of the English version of the Person-Centred Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT) and evaluate its psychometric properties.
designP-CAT was translated/back-translated using established procedures before the psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version was made.
settingTwo hospitals covering urban and suburban areas of Kunming in the Yunnan province of China.
participants152 female hospital staff completed the survey.
main outcome measuresConstruct validity and reliability, including internal consistency and test-retest reliability, were assessed among a sample of hospital staff.
resultsThe factor analysis resulted in a two-component solution that consisted of two subscales. The corrected item-total correlations for all of the items ranged from 0.14 to 0.44, with six items not meeting the cut-off level for item-total correlation (>0.3). The Chinese P-CAT demonstrated strong reliability, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.91-0.94 for the scales and a test-retest reliability coefficient of 0.88 for the overall scale scores. The intraclass correlation was 0.92 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.95).
conclusionP-CAT appears to be a promising measure for evaluating staff perceptions of person-centredness in Chinese hospital environments. The results show that P-CAT can be a useful tool for improving the quality of healthcare in terms of person-centred care in the Chinese context.
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.