ArticleObesity facts2025
Validation of the 40-Item and 24-Item Short Version of the Person-Centred Obesity Care Instrument for Patients Living with Obesity.
Article in Obesity facts, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPerson-centred care (PCC) may hold promise for improved healthcare experiences and outcomes among patients living with obesity. A validated instrument to assess the delivery of PCC to patients living with obesity is, however, currently lacking. This study aimed to validate such an instrument. In this article, we describe the development and psychometric testing of the 40-item and 24-item short version of the Person-Centred Obesity Care (PCOC) instrument.
methodsA total of 590 individuals living with obesity (BMI 33.4 ± 3.9) from a representative Dutch sample completed the 49-item PCOC instrument measuring the eight dimensions of PCC (patient preferences, physical comfort, coordination of care, emotional support, access to care, continuity and transition, information and education, and family and friends), and two measures of satisfaction with care. We performed confirmatory factor analyses to verify the factor structure of the instrument and examined its reliability and validity.
resultsFit indicators of the first model with all 49 items showed that the model left room for improvement (comparative fit index [CFI] <0.90). A 40-item version was obtained with satisfactory-to-good fit (standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = 0.05, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.06, CFI = 0.90). The instrument demonstrated good reliability, and the relationship between the PCOC and two indicators of satisfaction with care supported the validity of the scale. Shortening the instrument only further improved the fit indicators, resulting in the development of a 24-item short version (SRMR = 0.04, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.96), with similar results in terms of reliability and validity.
conclusionThe 40-item PCOC instrument and the 24-item short version showed to be reliable and valid instruments for the assessment of PCC among patients living with obesity. Based on the results, the 40 and 24-item PCOC are promising tools that can be used by clinicians and researchers to explore PCC delivery for patients living with obesity.
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.