Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38523274›Full record

ArticleBMC nursing2024

Evaluating person-centered care in neurological outpatient care: a mixed-methods content validity study.

Mia Olsson, Sidona-Valentina Bala, Peter Hagell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nursing, 2024. 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

3 authors.

Mia OlssonDepartment of Medicine, Helsingborg Central Hospital, Helsingborg, Sweden.
Sidona-Valentina BalaDepartment of Medicine, Helsingborg Central Hospital, Helsingborg, Sweden.
Peter HagellThe PRO-CARE Group, Faculty of Health Sciences, Kristianstad University, Kristianstad, SE-291 88, Sweden. Peter.Hagell@hkr.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPerson-centered care (PCC) is gaining increased attention. PCC concerns the whole person behind the disease and can improve care for people with long-term conditions such as multiple sclerosis (MS) and Parkinson's disease (PD). However, there is a lack of tools to assess PCC from the patients' perspective, particularly in outpatient care. The Person-Centered Care instrument for outpatient care (PCCoc) is an instrument under development with the intention to fill this gap. The aim of this study was to test the user-friendliness and content validity of the PCCoc as experienced by persons with MS and PD in neurological outpatient care.

methodsTwenty persons with MS or PD completed the 35-item PCCoc followed by an interview regarding the instrument's intelligibility and ease of use to assess its user-friendliness. Participants then rated the relevance of each item. These ratings were used to calculate the content validity index (CVI) for individual items (I-CVI) and for the overall scale (S-CVI).

resultsIt took a median of 5 min for participants to complete the PCCoc. Instrument instructions were found clear, items easy to understand, and response categories distinct. No important missing areas were reported. I-CVI values ranged between 0.75 and 1, and S-CVI was 0.96.

conclusionsWe found support for the user-friendliness and content validity of the PCCoc among persons with MS and PD, suggesting that the PCCoc can be useful for evaluating and developing PCC in neurological outpatient care. Further testing in broader contexts, including psychometric testing, is warranted to establish its usefulness.

Indexed as

EvaluationMultiple sclerosisNeurologyOutpatient careParkinson’s diseasePerson-centered care

Identifiers

PMID38523274
PMCPMC10962160

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.