ArticlePloS one2024
Validation of the patient reported experiences and outcomes of safety in primary care compact Form Brazil.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient-reported experiences and patient-reported experience measures in primary care, home care, and community settings. A scoping review.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Pooled it
- A perspective on the use of patient-reported experience and patient-reported outcome measures in ambulatory healthcare.Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research · 2025Review
- Evaluation of SINERGIAPS, an intervention to improve patient safety in primary healthcare centers in Spain based on patients' perceptions and experiences: a protocol for a hybrid type I randomized clinical trial.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze the psychometric properties of the cross-culturally adapted version of the Patient Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care (PREOS-PC) Compact Form Brazil.
methodsA methodological study was conducted with 281 adult Primary Health Care users. Data collection took place online. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to evaluate the psychometric properties of the PREOS-PC after the process of cross-cultural adaptation to the Brazilian context. Internal consistency was evaluated through Cronbach's alpha coefficient (α) and McDonald's omega coefficient (ω).
resultsThe sample consisted of 73.3% women. The mean age was 36.1 years (SD = 12.2). Of the 23 items of the PREOS-PC that were eligible for CFA, a model with four correlated domains and 16 items presented satisfactory fit indexes. The domains were Practice Activation (PrA) (four items), Patient Activation (PaA) (two items), Experiences of patient safety events (EPaS) (five items) and Outcomes of patient safety (OPaS) (six items). One domain (GPeS) presented one question with a 0 to 10 response scale and two open questions, which cannot be inserted in the CPA due to the nature of the items, but can be included in the application of the scale, being evaluated individually. In this factorial model, five items (EPaS2, EPaS3, EPaS4, EPaS5, EPaS6 and EPaS8) presented factor loadings ≤ 0.30. The α and ω values demonstrated good internal consistency for all domains of the PREOS-PC.
conclusionsThe Brazilian version of the PREOS-PC Compact Form Brazil composed of four domains (PrA, PA, EPaS and OPaS) and 16 items presented evidence of validation of its psychometric properties and can be used to evaluate the experiences and results of patient safety in Primary Health Care in the Brazilian context.
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.