ArticleBMC health services research2024
Assessment of multi-professional primary healthcare center quality by patients with multimorbidity.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multi-professional primary healthcare centres: psychometric testing of a new quality-of-care instrument.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe main aim of this study was to build an item bank for assessing the care quality of multi-professional healthcare centers (MPHCC) from the perspective of patients with multimorbidity. This study was part of the QUALSOPRIM (QUALité des SOins PRIMaires; primary healthcare quality) research project to create a psychometrically robust self-administered questionnaire to assess healthcare quality.
methodsFirst, twelve experts built an item bank using data from a previous qualitative work and a systematic literature review. Second, the validity of each item was assessed in a sample of patients. Adult patients with multimorbidity were recruited from six French MPHCC. Items were assessed based on ceiling effects, the level of missing or neutral responses and patient feedback. Patient feedback was recorded after the item bank completion. Based on results, items were validated, improved, or removed during expert meetings. In case of disagreement the Delphi method was used to reach consensus.
resultsThe study sample included 209 outpatients. The most frequent medical conditions were cardiovascular risk factors, cardiovascular diseases and rheumatological conditions. In total, a bank of 109 items classified in nine domains was built. The validity assessment led to the removal of 34 items. Retained items explored a variety of topics related to care quality: availability, accessibility, premises' layout and building, technical care, expertise, organization, relationships with caregivers and communication, involvement and personal relationships.
conclusionsThis study allowed cross-validation of a bank of 75 items, leading to a complete picture of the patient perception of care quality items. Overall, patients were generally satisfied with their care at the MPHCC. Nonetheless, there were still numerous items on subjects for which patients' satisfaction could be improved.
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.