ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Development and Validation of a Rapid Assessment Version of the Assessment Survey of Primary Care in China.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Measuring quality of primary care has attracted much attention around the world. Our team has developed and validated an Assessment Survey of Primary Care (ASPC) for evaluating quality of primary care in China. To facilitate the daily use of ASPC, this study aimed to develop and validate a rapid assessment version of ASPC (RA-ASPC) in China. Methods: This is a multi-phase study on 21 experts and 1,184 patients from 12 primary care facilities in 10 cities in China. Importance, representativeness, easy understanding, and general applicability of each item in ASPC scale were rated to select the top two ranked items for constituting RA-ASPC. Reliability of RA-ASPC was tested by calculating both Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega coefficients. Structural validity was assessed by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA). Concurrent validity was performed by analyzing the relationship between RA-ASPC and patient satisfaction. Discriminant validity was tested by assessing the difference of RA-ASPC scores between patients with or without family doctors. Results: Ten items were selected for RA-ASPC. Both Cronbach's alpha (0.732) and McDonald's omega (0.729) suggested satisfactory internal consistency. In EFA, explained variance of RA-ASPC (72.6%) indicated its ability to measure quality of primary care in China. CFA indicators showed convincing goodness-of-fit (GFI = 0.996, AGFI = 0.992, CFI = 1.000, NFI = 0.980, RMR = 0.022, and the RMSEA = 0.000) for RA-ASPC. Positive association between RA-ASPC and patient satisfaction supported the concurrent validity of RA-ASPC. Patients with family doctors perceived higher quality of primary care than those without family doctors, indicating good discriminant validity of RA-ASPC. Conclusion: The theoretical framework of RA-ASPC was in line with internationally recognized core functions of primary care. Good psychometric properties of RA-ASPC proved its appropriateness in assessing quality of primary care from patients' perspectives in China.
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.