SynthesisFamily practice2022
A systematic literature review of patient self-assessment instruments concerning quality of primary care in multiprofessional clinics.
Synthesis in Family practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of international performance indicators and metrics relevant to UK general practice.BMJ open quality · 2025Pooled it
- Psychometric properties and constructs of Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) in primary care: a scoping review.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of a Culturally Adapted Patient-Reported Experience Measure for Diabetes Care in Thailand: Mixed-Methods Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Multi-professional primary healthcare centres: psychometric testing of a new quality-of-care instrument.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
- Workers' satisfaction with health surveillance: Development and validation of a new scale.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2025Article
- Patient experience and primary care teams: a cross-sectional survey of French elderly patients.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Development, validation, and usage of metrics to evaluate the quality of clinical research hypotheses.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Assessment of multi-professional primary healthcare center quality by patients with multimorbidity.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Public satisfaction with health system after healthcare reform in China.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Russian-language translation and cultural adaptation of the Norwegian 'Patient Experience Questionnaire'.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Comparative Analysis of Patient Satisfaction Surveys-A Crucial Role in Raising the Standard of Healthcare Services.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Development and validation of primary health care quality assessment tool.BMC health services research · 2023Article
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
backgroundQuality of care remains a priority issue and is correlated with patient experience. Measuring multidimensional patient primary care experiences in multiprofessional clinics requires a robust instrument. Although many exist, little is known about their quality.
objectiveTo identify patient perception instruments in multiprofessional primary care and evaluate their quality.
methodsSystematic review using Medline, Pascal, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Cochrane, Scopus, and CAIRN. Eligible articles developed, evaluated, or validated 1 or more self-assessment instruments. The instruments had to measure primary care delivery, patient primary care experiences and assess at least 3 quality-of-care dimensions. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to assess methodological quality of included studies. Instrument measurement properties were appraised using 3 possible quality scores. Data were combined to provide best-evidence synthesis based on the number of studies, their methodological quality, measurement property appraisal, and result consistency. Subscales used to capture patient primary care experiences were extracted and grouped into the 9 Institute of Medicine dimensions.
resultsTwenty-nine articles were found. The included instruments captured many subscales illustrating the diverse conceptualization of patient primary care experiences. No included instrument demonstrated adequate validity and the lack of scientific methodology for assessing reliability made interpreting validity questionable. No study evaluated instrument responsiveness.
conclusionNumerous patient self-assessment instruments were identified capturing a wide range of patient experiences, but their measurement properties were weak. Research is required to develop and validate a generic instrument for assessing quality of multiprofessional primary care.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.