Trial reportPatient education and counseling2022
Psychometric assessment of the consideRATE questions, a new measure of serious illness experience, with an online simulation study.
Trial report in Patient education and counseling, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 7 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.
Setting the Agenda: A Pilot Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial of a Structured Clinical Visit Agenda-Setting Intervention for Rural-Residing People With Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease
Centering Children and Care Partners in Complex Pediatric Hospital Stays: Evaluation of a Structured Inpatient Agenda-setting Intervention for Multidisciplinary Family Meetings
Setting the Agenda: An Open Pilot of a Structured Clinical Visit Agenda-Setting Intervention for Rural-Residing People With Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Description of patient reported experience measures (PREMs) for hospitalised patients with palliative care needs and their families, and how these map to noted areas of importance for quality care: A systematic review.Palliative medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Improving patient reported experience in inpatients with palliative care needs: a pre-post quality improvement study.BMC palliative care · 2025Article
- Using consideRATE to Evaluate Patient Experience in a Cancer Center: Psychometric and Healthcare Assessments.Psycho-oncology · 2025Article
- Use of the consideRATE and integRATE Measures to Assess Care Quality in Inpatient Palliative Care.Journal of pain and symptom management · 2025Article
- Feasibility and acceptability of the brief patient-reported experience measure consideRATE within the hospital setting for patients with palliative care needs, their families/carers and clinicians.Palliative medicine · 2025Article
- Experience of care from the perspectives of inpatients with palliative care needs: a cross-sectional study using a patient reported experience measure (PREM).BMC palliative care · 2024Article
- Understanding the extent to which PROMs and PREMs used with older people with severe frailty capture their multidimensional needs: A scoping review.Palliative medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the psychometric properties of the consideRATE questions, a measure of serious illness experience.
methodsWe recruited people at least 50 years old via paid panels online, with US-Census-based quotas. We randomized participants to a patient experience story at two time points. Participants completed a series of measures, including the consideRATE questions. We assessed convergent (Pearson's correlation), discriminative (one-way ANOVA with Tukey's test for multiple comparisons) and divergent (Pearson's correlation) validity. We also assessed intra-rater reliability (intra-class correlation) and responsiveness to change (t-tests).
resultsWe included 809 individuals in our analysis. We established convergent validity (r = 0.77; p < 0.001); discriminative validity (bad/neutral stories [mean diff=0.4; p < 0.001]; neutral/ good stories [mean diff=1.3; p < 0.001]) and moderate divergent validity (r = 0.57; p < 0.001). We established sensitivity to change in all stories (bad/good [mean diff=1.52; p < 0.001]; good/bad [mean diff= -1.68; p < 0.001]; neutral/bad [mean diff= -0.57; p < 0.001]; good/neutral [mean diff= -1.11; p < 0.001]; neutral/good [mean diff= 1.1; p < 0.001]) but one (bad/neutral [mean diff= 0.4; p < 0.07]). Intra-rater reliability was demonstrated between time points (r = 0.77; p < 0.001).
conclusionsthe consideRATE questions were reliable and valid in a simulated online test. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: the consideRATE questions may be a practical way to measure serious illness experience and the effectiveness of interventions to improve it.
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.