ArticlePorto biomedical journal
Portuguese adaptation and validation of a patient-reported experience measure for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A protocol study.
Article in Porto biomedical journal. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is a growing attention to patient-reported experience measures in assessing the quality of care in patient-centered care models. A specific patient-reported experience measure for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been developed in the United Kingdom-Commissioning for Quality in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patient-Reported Experience Measure. This patient-reported experience measure might be feasible to be used in Portugal, yet an adaptation and validation process is needed. Therefore, the aims of this study will be to translate and cross-culturally adapt the Portuguese version of the Commissioning for Quality in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patient-Reported Experience Measure, evaluate its content and face validity through a qualitative approach, and evaluate its psychometric properties through a clinical field testing. Methods: This study is based on a multimethod approach combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. This study will include patients with RA from a single rheumatology center. Three sequential phases are planned: Commissioning for Quality in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patient-Reported Experience Measure translation and cultural adaptation, Commissioning for Quality in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patient-Reported Experience Measure content and face validity assessed through 2 focus groups with at least 10 patients, and the Commissioning for Quality in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patient-Reported Experience Measure field testing through a cross-sectional study with 50 patients. Conclusions: By involving patients with RA in the validation and implementation of the Commissioning for Quality in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patient-Reported Experience Measure, we expect to demonstrate the usefulness of this specific patient-reported experience measure to improve health care provided to patients with RA.
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.