ArticleJournal of primary care & community health
Comparison of Patient and Proxy Assessment of Patient-Centeredness in the Care of Coronary Heart Disease: A Cross Sectional Survey Using the PACIC-S11.1.
Article in Journal of primary care & community health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionWhen making medical care more patient-centered, surveys on patients' and their relatives' experiences can be helpful in identifying opportunities for improvement. In cases where the targeted patients are unable to express their own perspective, for example, due to them being too young or suffering from severe impairments, proxies can serve as substitutes. Proxies are frequently used in care planning and consent. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether patients' assessments of how patient-centered their medical care is are similar to those of their proxies. This study aims to assess the level of consistency between patients' and their proxies' assessments using an adapted version of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) short form questionnaire.
methodsIn a cross-sectional study, patients with coronary heart disease were recruited at cardiologists' offices, rehabilitation clinics and hospitals. Participants were surveyed with regard to the perceived level of patient-centeredness during their care using an adapted version of the German PACIC short form (PACIC-S11.1). Correlations in the assessments made by each patient and their respective proxy were analyzed. On the level of the patients group and the relatives group differences between mean ratings for each item were compared using paired
resultsIn total, 74 pairs of patients and proxies submitted the completed questionnaire. On the level of the individual patient/proxy pairs, no correlation, or significant but low correlation, was found between the ratings. On the group level, patients' and their proxies' item ratings were similar in the interpretation of averages, but still demonstrated statistically significant differences. Overall, patients rated their care as more patient-centered than their proxies did.
conclusionThe study shows that, on the individual level, proxies' ratings do not necessarily reflect the patients' assessment of PCC. On the group level, the assessments of relatives regarding PCC are similar to those of the patients.
trial registrationGerman clinical trials register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien, DRKS) Registration Number: DRKS00012434 (URL: https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00012434).
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.