ArticleBMJ open2022
Assessing patient experience with patient safety in primary care: development and validation of the ASK-ME-questionnaire.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Patient safety-development and evaluation].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026Review
- Coproducing data-driven organizational safety with patients: development and cognitive testing of a multisetting patient-reported safety concern tool.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025Article
- Applying a co-designed medication plan for safer medication treatment in older persons: a feasibility study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the psychometric performance of the Spanish and Catalan versions of the patient reported experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care (PREOS-PC)-Compact questionnaire.The European journal of general practice · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and test the validity and reliability of a tool measuring patient experiences with patient safety in ambulatory care that is suitable for routine use in general practitioner and specialist practices.
designInstrument development was based on a literature review, a 3-round Delphi survey with a multidisciplinary expert panel and cognitive interviews with patients. The instrument was piloted in 22 practices using a cross-sectional survey. Exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were performed to test construct validity. Internal consistency and the ability of the questionnaire to differentiate between selected subgroups and at the level of individual practices was examined.
settingGeneral practitioner and specialist practices.
participantsPatients aged >18 years seeking care in ambulatory care practices between February and June 2020.
resultsThe final ASK-ME-questionnaire consisted of 22 items covering 5 theoretical dimensions. A total of 3042 patients (71.1%) completed the questionnaire. Median item non-response rate was 4.2% (IQR 3.4%-4.7%). EFA yielded 3 factors comprising 14 items explaining 64.8% of the variance representing contributing factors to patient safety incidents. CFA confirmed the factorial structure suggested by EFA. The model fit the data satisfactorily (comparative fit index=0.92, root mean square error of approximation=0.08, standardised root mean square residual=0.08). Internal consistency values ranged from 0.7 to 0.9. Discriminant validity was supported by significant differences between patients of different age and differences in self-reported health status. The factors distinguished well between practices.
conclusionThe ASK-ME-questionnaire showed good psychometric properties. It is suitable for routine use in patient safety measurement and improvement systems in ambulatory care. Further research is required to adequately assess number and type of experienced events in routine measurements.
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.