ArticleBMJ open2020
Development and validation of a Japanese version of the Patient Centred Assessment Method and its user guide: a cross-sectional study.
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 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.
- Addressing healthcare needs in an inaugural family medicine clinic in a core city in Japan: Mixed-methods research.Journal of general and family medicine · 2025Article
- The extent and improvement of patient complexity in referrals to hospital family physicians from community healthcare-related centers in Japan: a retrospective cohort study.Family practice · 2025Article
- Development and validation of the Japanese version of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Development of Clinical Skills Scale.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- The Patient Centered Assessment Method (PCAM) for Action-Based Biopsychosocial Evaluation of Patient Needs: Validation and Perceived Value of the Dutch Translation.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe primary objective of this study was to develop the Japanese version of the Patient Centred Assessment Method (PCAM) and its user guide. The secondary objective was to examine the validity and reliability in the primary care setting.
designCross-sectional study.
settingThree family physician teaching clinics located in urban residential areas in Tokyo, Japan.
participantsPatients who were aged 20 years or older, and who had an appointment with physicians at the three participating clinics.
main outcome measuresPatient complexity measured by PCAM and complexity/burden level measured by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS).
resultsAlthough confirmatory factor analysis using a model described in a previous study revealed that the indices did not meet the criteria for good fit, exploratory factor analysis revealed a new three-factor structure of 'Personal well-being,' 'Social interaction' and 'Needs for care/service.' Cronbach's alpha of PCAM was 0.86. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients between PCAM scores and VAS scores were 0.51 for complexity (p<0.001) and 0.41 for burden (p<0.001). There were 42 patients (14.3% of total patients) with PCAM scores greater than its mean of 16.5 but with complexity VAS scores less than its mean of 20.8.
conclusionsThe Japanese version of PCAM and its user guide were developed through Japanese translation and cultural adaptation by cognitive debriefing. PCAM is a valid and reliable tool to assess patient complexity in the primary care settings in Japan. Additionally, although the correlation between total PCAM scores and complexity/burden as assessed by VAS was moderate, PCAM can more precisely identify patient complexity than skilled physician's intuition.
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.