ArticleBMC primary care2022
Development and validation of a Japanese version of the person-centered primary care measure.
Article in BMC primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation of the Person-Centered Primary Care Measure.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2025Article
- Usual source and better quality of primary care are associated with lower loneliness scores: a cross-sectional study.Family practice · 2024Article
- Patient experiences in primary care do not differ according to rurality: a cross-sectional study.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Development and validation of the Japanese version of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Development of Clinical Skills Scale.PloS one · 2024Article
- Dutch Translation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Person-Centered Primary Care Measure.Annals of family medicineArticle
- Association Between Duration of Usual Source of Care and Patient-reported Primary Care Quality in Japan: A Nationwide Cross-sectional Study.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough primary care (PC) is an indispensable part of the health system, measuring its quality is challenging. A recent measure of PC, Person-Centered Primary Care Measure (PCPCM), covers 11 important domains of PC and has been translated into 28 languages. This study aimed to develop a Japanese version of the PCPCM and assess its reliability and validity.
methodsWe employed a cross-sectional mail survey to examine the reliability and content, structure, criterion-related, and convergent validity of the Japanese version of the PCPCM. This study targeted 1000 potential participants aged 20-74 years, selected by simple random sampling in an urban area in Japan. We examined internal consistency, confirmatory factor analysis, correlation between the Japanese version of the Primary Care Assessment Tool-Short Form (JPCAT-SF), and the association between the PCPCM score and influenza vaccine uptake.
resultsA total of 417 individuals responded to the survey (response rate = 41.7%), and we used the data of 244 participants who had the usual source of care to assess the reliability and validity of the PCPCM. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated sufficient structural validity of the original one-factor structure. The overall Cronbach's alpha was 0.94. The Spearman correlation coefficient between PCPCM and JPCAT-SF was 0.60. Influenza vaccine uptake was not significantly associated with total PCPCM score.
conclusionsThe study showed that the Japanese version of the PCPCM has sufficient internal consistency reliability and structural- and criterion-related validity. The measure can be used to compare the quality of primary care in Japan and other countries.
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.