ArticleBMJ open2022
Structural validity and internal consistency of the Patient Centred Assessment Method in a primary care setting in a Japanese island area: a cross-sectional study.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this study was to examine the structural validity and internal consistency of the original English version of the Patient Centred Assessment Method (PCAM) in a primary care setting in a Japanese island area.
designCross-sectional study.
settingA clinic on a remote island in Okinawa, Japan, that provides general outpatient and 24-hour emergency services.
participantsThis study included 355 patients who visited Tarama Clinic from 1 April 2018 to 30 June 2018, were aged ≥20 years, lived in Tarama Village and had decision-making capacity.
main outcome measuresPatient complexity scored by the PCAM.
resultsThe mean (SD) PCAM score was 21.4 (5.7). The distribution was skewed to the right and there were no ceiling and floor effects. Confirmatory factor analysis found that the previously reported two-factor and three-factor structures did not show a good fit (root mean square error of approximation 0.18 and 0.16, comparative fit index 0.83 and 0.89 and standardised root mean square residual 0.14 and 0.11, respectively). Exploratory factor analysis revealed a new two-factor structure: 'Biomedical complexity' and 'Psychosocial complexity'. The Cronbach's alpha values for the total PCAM score, the 'Biomedical complexity' factor, and the 'Psychosocial complexity' factor were 0.81, 0.82 and 0.74, respectively.
conclusionsIn this study, confirmatory factor analysis found that the data did not fit sufficiently using the previously reported two-factor and three-factor structures. Instead, exploratory factor analysis revealed a new two-factor structure, for which the Cronbach's alpha values exceeded the threshold level. Therefore, the structural validity and internal consistency of the English version of the PCAM were verified in a primary care setting in a Japanese island area.
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.