ArticleBMC health services research2022
Evaluating clinician experience in value-based health care: the development and validation of the Clinician Experience Measure (CEM).
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Working Conditions of Employee Optometrists in Australia.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Point of care ultrasound knowledge attitudes and practices among emergency and ICU healthcare providers.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Assessment of clinician well-being and the factors that influence it using validated questionnaires: a systematic review.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Development of a Brief, Positively Framed Care Team Experience Measure.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2025Article
- Outpatient Virtual Care Among People Living With and Beyond Cancer From Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds in Australia: A Protocol for a Realist Evaluation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Gains and pains: a qualitative study on the implications of value-based health care for professionals.Human resources for health · 2025Article
- Towards a New Integrated Model for Taking Into Account the Experiential Knowledge of People With Chronic Diseases, Integrating Mediation, Therapeutic Education and Partnership: The Expanded Chronic Care Patient-Professional Partnership Model.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Review
- Community-based participatory-research through co-design: supporting collaboration from all sides of disability.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Measuring in-hospital quality multidimensionally by integrating patients', kin's and healthcare professionals' perspectives: development and validation of the FlaQuM-Quickscan.BMC health services research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinicians' experiences of providing care constitute an important outcome for evaluating care from a value-based healthcare perspective. Yet no currently available instruments have been designed and validated for assessing clinicians' experiences. This research sought to address this important gap by developing and validating a novel instrument in a public health system in Australia.
methodsA multi-method project was conducted using co-design with 12 clinician leaders from a range of NSW Health Local Health Districts to develop the Clinician Experience Measure (CEM). Validity and reliability analyses were conducted in two stages, first assessing face and content validity with a pool of 25 clinicians and then using psychometric analysis with data from 433 clinicians, including nurses, doctors and allied health and representing all districts within one jurisdiction in Australia.
resultsData gathered from 25 clinicians via the face and content validity process indicated that the initial 31-items were relevant to the range of staff employed in the NSW state health system, with minor edits made to the survey layout and wording within two items. Psychometric analysis led to a rationalised 18-item final instrument, comprising four domains: psychological safety (4-items); quality of care (5-items); clinician engagement (4-items) and interprofessional collaboration (5-items). The 18-item four-factor model produced a good fit to the data and high levels of reliability, with factor loadings ranging from .62 to .94, with Cronbach's alpha (range: .83 to .96) and composite reliability (range: .85 to .97).
conclusionsThe CEM is an instrument to capture clinicians' experiences of providing care across a health system. The CEM provides a useful tool for healthcare leaders and policy makers to benchmark and assess the impact of value-based care initiatives and direct change efforts.
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.