Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38641852›Full record

SynthesisBMC psychology2024

Person-centered care assessment tool with a focus on quality healthcare: a systematic review of psychometric properties.

Lluna Maria Bru-Luna, Manuel Martí-Vilar, César Merino-Soto, José Livia-Segovia, Juan Garduño-Espinosa, Filiberto Toledano-Toledano

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Initial Co-Design Development of a Questionnaire to Measure Patient Preferences in a Danish Mental Healthcare Setting.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  4. PCPI-S SF: development and psychometric assessment of the Person-centred Practice Inventory Staff-Short Form.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Lluna Maria Bru-LunaDepartamento de Educación, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Europea de Valencia, 46010, Valencia, Spain.
Manuel Martí-VilarDepartamento de Psicología Básica, Universitat de València, Blasco Ibáñez Avenue, 21, 46010, Valencia, Spain.
César Merino-SotoDepartamento de Psicología, Instituto de Investigación de Psicología, Universidad de San Martín de Porres, Tomás Marsano Avenue 242, Lima 34, Perú.
José Livia-SegoviaInstituto Central de Gestión de la Investigación, Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal, Carlos Gonzalez Avenue 285, 15088, San Miguel, Perú.
Juan Garduño-EspinosaUnidad de Investigación en Medicina Basada en Evidencias, Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gómez Instituto Nacional de Salud, Dr. Márquez 162, 06720, Doctores, Cuauhtémoc, Mexico.
Filiberto Toledano-ToledanoUnidad de Investigación en Medicina Basada en Evidencias, Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gómez Instituto Nacional de Salud, Dr. Márquez 162, 06720, Doctores, Cuauhtémoc, Mexico. filiberto.toledano.phd@gmail.com.

Funding

Effects of mindfulness training on psychological distress and quality of life of the family caregiver HIM/2015/017/SSA.1207
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe person-centered care (PCC) approach plays a fundamental role in ensuring quality healthcare. The Person-Centered Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT) is one of the shortest and simplest tools currently available for measuring PCC. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the evidence in validation studies of the P-CAT, taking the "Standards" as a frame of reference.

methodsFirst, a systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA method. Second, a systematic descriptive literature review of validity tests was conducted following the "Standards" framework. The search strategy and information sources were obtained from the Cochrane, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and PubMed databases. With regard to the eligibility criteria and selection process, a protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022335866), and articles had to meet criteria for inclusion in the systematic review.

resultsA total of seven articles were included. Empirical evidence indicates that these validations offer a high number of sources related to test content, internal structure for dimensionality and internal consistency. A moderate number of sources pertain to internal structure in terms of test-retest reliability and the relationship with other variables. There is little evidence of response processes, internal structure in measurement invariance terms, and test consequences. DISCUSSION: The various validations of the P-CAT are not framed in a structured, valid, theory-based procedural framework like the "Standards" are. This can affect clinical practice because people's health may depend on it. The findings of this study show that validation studies continue to focus on the types of validity traditionally studied and overlook interpretation of the scores in terms of their intended use.

Indexed as

Patient-Centered CarePsychometricsQuality of Health CareHumansReproducibility of ResultsP-CATPCCPerson-centered carePerson-centered care assessment toolStandardsValidity

Identifiers

PMID38641852
PMCPMC11031960

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.