Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39138545›Full record

ArticleArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2024

Design and validation of an instrument to evaluate Person-Centered care in health services.

Rodolfo Lehmann-Mendoza, Gabriela Yanet Cortés-Moreno, Odet Sarabia-González, Rosa Paola Figuerola-Escoto, David Luna, Ilicia González-Mundo, Rubén Caselín-Ledezma, Roberto Arturo Vázquez-Dávila, Hilario Ascención Martínez-Arredondo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Rodolfo Lehmann-MendozaSubdirección de Servicios de Salud de Petróleos Mexicanos, Ciudad de México, México. artroscopia@prodigy.net.mx.
Gabriela Yanet Cortés-MorenoCoordinación Nacional de Investigación, Petróleos Mexicanos, Ciudad de México, México. gabriela.yanet.cortes@pemex.com.
Odet Sarabia-GonzálezSubgerencia de Calidad, Servicios de Salud de Petróleos Mexicanos, Ciudad de México, México.
Rosa Paola Figuerola-EscotoCentro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias de Salud, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Ciudad de México, México.
David LunaUnidad de Investigación Multidisciplinaria en Salud, Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación Luis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra, Ciudad de México, México.
Ilicia González-MundoCoordinación Nacional de Investigación, Petróleos Mexicanos, Ciudad de México, México.
Rubén Caselín-LedezmaUniversidad Popular Autónoma del Estado de Puebla, Puebla, México.
Roberto Arturo Vázquez-DávilaSubgerencia de Educación y Desarrollo en Salud, Petróleos Mexicanos, Ciudad de México, México.
Hilario Ascención Martínez-ArredondoGerencia de Medicina Preventiva, Petróleos Mexicanos, Ciudad de México, México.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe concept of quality in health care has evolved, placing greater importance on the patient's needs, culture, and social context, as well as their participation in clinical decision-making, as highlighted by Mead and Bower's Person-Centered Care Model. The aim of the present study was to design and validate an instrument to assess the extent to which healthcare services provided by PEMEX (Petróleos Mexicanos) offer person-centered care according to user perceptions.

methodsThe first phase comprised the development of 57 items based on the analysis of responses from an open-ended questionnaire administered to 30 users of Pemex healthcare services. This questionnaire was designed considering the four factors of the person-centered care model, however, the high correlation between the 4 factors (i.e., r ≥ .80) indicated an overfactoring effect and consequently an increase in the risk of overfitting. Therefore, an exhaustive analysis of the instrument was performed, starting with the review of the individual behavior of each item, and carrying out exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Using a sample of 330 individuals, an exploratory factor analysis was perfomed. Afterward, a confirmatory factorial analysis was carried out with 335 participants. Finally, a new confirmatory factorial analysis included 130 participants due to the refinements made in the previous phase. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω at every phase.

resultsThe exploratory factor analysis retained 35 items in a single factor that accounted for 49% of the variance with an internal consistency of Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω = 0.97. Because the factorial structure by confirmatory factorial analysis was unsatisfactory, the initial model was refined, leading to the retention of 11 items and a final model with adjustment index of χ2 = 127.53, χ2/gl = 2.89, RMSEA = 0.07, IC RMSEA 0.06 to 0.09, TLI = 0.95 and CFI = 0.96, with an internal consistency of Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω = 0.93. Due to the refinements, a new confirmatory factorial analysis was conducted with suitable goodness-of-fit criteria in most items (χ2 = 151.44, χ2/gl = 3.43, RMSEA = 0.13, IC RMSEA 0.11 to 0.16, TLI = 0.93 and CFI = 0.94), resulting in a Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω = 0.98.

conclusionsThe instrument exhibits suitable psychometric properties to be employed to measure the degree to which medical care is patient centered. This instrument represents a strategy for promoting an innovative healthcare model.

Indexed as

Confirmatory factorial analysisExploratory factorial analysisInstrument designInstrument validationPerson-centered care

Identifiers

PMID39138545
PMCPMC11323455

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.