Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36258211›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Measuring continuity of ambulatory cardiovascular care: a cross-sectional study on the applicability of the Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire in Germany.

Patrick Hennrich, Christine Arnold, Jan Koetsenruijter, Michel Wensing

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Patrick HennrichHeidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. patrick.hennrich@med.uni-heidelberg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5924-047X
Christine ArnoldHeidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4201-1800
Jan KoetsenruijterHeidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4632-5129
Michel WensingHeidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6569-8137

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 416396249
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronic cardiovascular diseases demand continuous care from general practitioners and medical specialists. Especially in fragmented healthcare systems, such as in Germany, a large body of research is devoted to the improvement of care continuity. Meanwhile, measuring continuity of care itself has been a challenge due to the absence of validated instruments. In 2011, the Dutch Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire (NCQ) was developed and validated to measure continuity of care across care settings from the patients' perspectives in the Netherlands. Its applicability in other countries and health systems, however, has rarely been tested. We therefore aimed at assessing the applicability of the Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire to the German health care context. 

methodsWe translated and applied the original NCQ to an ambulatory cardiovascular care setting in Germany. Qualitative interview data and quantitative survey data on our adaptation were collected from patients in 27 general practices within the German states of Baden-Wuerttemberg and Rhineland-Palatinate. Qualitative data on understandability and clearness of the questionnaire was obtained using semi-structured telephone interviews and think aloud-protocols. Quantitative data was obtained through an anonymous written questionnaire containing the translated NCQ items to assess applicability of our translation. We performed confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses based on the original NCQ-structure mapped to general practitioners and an aggregated analysis of general practitioners and cardiologists combined.

resultsA total of 6 patients participated in the interviews and a total of 435 patients participated in the written survey. The interviews showed that, overall, patients had little difficulties comprehending and answering to our translation of the NCQ. The confirmatory factor analyses then showed that the structure of the original NCQ with 12 items and 3 latent factors can also be found in the German context. However, a simpler 2-factor-structure would also fit well with the data.

conclusionA German translation of the NCQ yielded a factor structure comparable to the original version and proved to be understandable for patients.

trial registrationThe project underlying the study was registered on November 7, 2019 in the German Clinical Trials Register ( www.drks.de ) under ID: DRKS00019219.

Indexed as

TranslationsCross-Sectional StudiesGermanyHumansReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesAmbulatory cardiology careApplicabilityCardiologistsContinuity of careGeneral practitionersGermanyNCQNijmegen Continuity Questionnaire

Identifiers

PMID36258211
PMCPMC9578194

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.