ArticleBMC primary care2024
Contextualizing the revised Patient Perception of Patient-Centeredness (PPPC-R) scale in primary healthcare settings: a validity and reliability evaluation study.
Article in BMC primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing quality gaps in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy care in China: an unannounced standardised patient study protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Primary healthcare quality of migraine in China: a study using unannounced standardized patients.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Article
- Quality of asynchronous webchatsThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2024Article
- Quality of Helicobacter pylori Infection Management Through Telemedicine: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of digestive diseasesObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAn English version of the Patient Perception of Patient-Centeredness (PPPC) scale was recently revised, and it is necessary to test this instrument in different primary care populations.
aimThis study aimed to assess the validity and reliability of a Chinese version of the PPPC scale.
designA mixed method was used in this study. The Delphi method was used to collect qualitative and quantitative data to address the content validity of the PPPC scale by calculating the Content Validity Index, Content Validity Ratio, the adjusted Kappa, and the Item Impact Score. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were used to assess the construct validity of the PPPC scale through a cross-sectional survey. The internal consistency was also assessed. SETTING/
participantsIn the Delphi consultation, seven experts were consulted through a questionnaire sent by email. The cross-sectional survey interviewed 188 outpatients in Guangzhou city and 108 outpatients in Hohhot City from community health service centers or stations face-to-face.
resultsThe 21 items in the scale were relevant to their component. The Item-level Content Validity Index for each item was higher than 0.79, and the average Scale-level content validity index was 0.97 in each evaluation round. The initial proposed 4-factor CFA model did not fit adequately. Still, we found a 3-factor solution based on our EFA model and the validation via the CFA model (model fit: [Formula: see text], P < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.044, CFI = 0.981; factor loadings: 0.553 to 0.888). Cronbach's α also indicated good internal consistency reliability: The overall Cronbach's α was 0.922, and the Cronbach's α for each factor was 0.851, 0.872, and 0.717, respectively.
conclusionsThe Chinese version of the PPPC scale provides a valuable tool for evaluating patient-centered medical service quality.
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.