ArticleBMC health services research2023
Validation of the accident and emergency experience questionnaire: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in BMC health services research, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient feedback is an important way for healthcare providers to understand patient experience and improve the quality of care effectively and facilitate patient-centered care in the healthcare system. This study aimed to suggest a validated instrument by evaluating the psychometric properties of the Accident and Emergency Experience Questionnaire (AEEQ) for measuring patient experience in the accident and emergency department (AED) service among the adult Chinese population.
methodsAttendances aged 18 or above from all public hospitals with AEDs during 16-30 June 2016 were targeted and a cross-sectional telephone survey was conducted using AEEQ. Preliminary AEEQ consisted of 92 items, including 53 core evaluative items and 19 informative items, and the other 20 items covered socio-demographics, self-perceived health status, and free open-ended comments on AED service. Psychometric properties of the evaluative items were evaluated for practicability, content and structure validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability in this study.
resultsA total of 512 patients were recruited with a response rate of 54% and a mean age of 53.2 years old. The exploratory factor analysis suggested removing 7 items due to weak factor loadings and high cross-loading and then leaving 46 items grouped into 5 dimensions, which were care and treatment (14 items), environment and facilities (16 items), information on medication and danger signals (5 items), clinical investigation (3 items), and overall impression (8 items) to represent patient experience on AED service. The internal consistency and test-retest reliability were high with Cronbach's alpha coefficient and Spearman's correlation coefficient of the suggested scale of 0.845 and 0.838, respectively.
conclusionThe AEEQ is a valid and reliable instrument to evaluate the AED service which helps to build the engagement platform for promoting patient-centered care between patients and frontline healthcare professionals and improving healthcare quality in the future.
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.