Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35446991›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2022

Development and content validity of the Experienced Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire (EPAT)-A best practice example for generating patient-reported measures from qualitative data.

Eva Christalle, Stefan Zeh, Pola Hahlweg, Levente Kriston, Martin Härter, Jördis Zill, Isabelle Scholl

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Development and Psychometric Testing of EPAT-16: A Short and Valid Measure for Patient-Centeredness From the Patient's Perspective.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eva ChristalleDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7813-5800
Stefan ZehDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1748-3155
Pola HahlwegDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8768-8594
Levente KristonDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0748-264X
Martin HärterDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7443-9890
Jördis ZillDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8995-5556
Isabelle SchollDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7639-0880
Universität Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTo effectively foster patient-centeredness (PC), it is crucial to measure its implementation. So far, there is no German measure to assess PC comprehensively. The aim of this study is to develop and select items for the Experienced Patient-Centeredness (EPAT) Questionnaire, a patient-reported experience measure (PREM). The EPAT intends to assess PC from the perspective of adult patients treated for different chronic diseases in inpatient and outpatient settings in Germany. Furthermore, we aim at providing a best-practice example for developing PREMs from qualitative data.

methodsThe development process comprised a three-phase mixed-method design: (1) preparation, (2) item generation and (3) item selection and testing of content validity. We generated items using qualitative content analysis based on information from focus groups, key informant interviews and literature search. We selected items using relevance rating and cognitive interviews. Participants were patients from four chronic disease groups (cancer, cardiovascular disease, mental disorder, musculoskeletal disorder) and healthcare experts (e.g., clinicians, researchers, patient representatives).

resultsWe conducted six focus groups with a total of 40 patients, key informant interviews with 10 experts and identified 48 PREMs from international literature. After team discussion, we reached a preliminary pool of 152 items. We conducted a relevance rating with 32 experts and 34 cognitive interviews with 21 patients. We selected 125 items assessing 16 dimensions of PC and showed high relevance and comprehensibility.

conclusionsThe EPAT questionnaire is currently undergoing psychometric testing. The transparent step-by-step report provides a best practice example that other researchers may consider for developing PREMs. Integrating literature and experts with a strong focus on patient feedback ensured good content validity. The EPAT questionnaire will be helpful in assessing PC in routine clinical practice in inpatient and outpatient settings for research and quality improvement. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients were not involved as active members of the research team. While developing the funding proposal, we informally reached out to several patient organizations who all gave us positive feedback on the study aims, thereby confirming their relevance. Those patient organizations endorsed the funding proposal with formal letters of support and supported recruitment by disseminating advertisements for study participation.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultChronic DiseaseGermanyHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnairesmixed methodspatient-centerednesspatient-reported experience measurequalitative dataquestionnaire development

Identifiers

PMID35446991
PMCPMC9327838
OpenAlexW4224298095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.