Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39414377›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2025

Through the patients' eyes: psychometric evaluation of the 64-item version of the Experienced Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire (EPAT-64).

Eva Christalle, Stefan Zeh, Hannah Führes, Alica Schellhorn, Pola Hahlweg, Jördis Maria Zill, Martin Härter, Carsten Bokemeyer, Jürgen Gallinat, Christoffer Gebhardt and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Development and Psychometric Testing of EPAT-16: A Short and Valid Measure for Patient-Centeredness From the Patient's Perspective.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    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

16 authors.

Eva ChristalleDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7813-5800
Stefan ZehDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Hannah FühresDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Alica SchellhornDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Pola HahlwegDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Jördis Maria ZillDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Martin HärterDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Carsten BokemeyerDepartment of Internal Medicine II (Oncology/Hematology/BMT/Pneumology), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Jürgen GallinatDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Christoffer GebhardtDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Christina MagnussenDepartment of Cardiology, University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Volkmar MüllerDepartment of Gynecology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Katharina Schmalstieg-BahrDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
André StrahlDepartment of Orthopedics, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Levente KristonDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0748-264X
Isabelle SchollDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany i.scholl@uke.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are valuable tools to evaluate patient-centredness (PC) from the patients' perspective. Despite their utility, a comprehensive PREM addressing PC has been lacking. To bridge this gap, we developed the preliminary version of the Experienced Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire (EPAT), a disease-generic tool based on the integrative model of PC comprising 16 dimensions. It demonstrated content validity. This study aimed to test its psychometric properties and to develop a final 64-item version (EPAT-64).

methodsIn this cross-sectional study, we included adult patients treated for cardiovascular diseases, cancer, musculoskeletal diseases and mental disorders in inpatient or outpatient settings in Germany. For each dimension of PC, we selected four items based on item characteristics such as item difficulty and corrected item-total correlation. We tested structural validity using confirmatory factor analysis, examined reliability by McDonald's Omega and tested construct validity by examining correlations with general health status and satisfaction with care.

resultsAnalysis of data from 2.024 patients showed excellent acceptance and acceptable item-total correlations for all EPAT-64 items, with few items demonstrating ceiling effects. The confirmatory factor analysis indicated the best fit for a bifactor model, where each item loaded on both a general factor and a dimension-specific factor. Omega showed high reliability for the general factor, while varying for specific dimensions. Construct validity was confirmed by absence of strong correlations with general health status and a strong correlation of the general factor with satisfaction with care.

conclusionsEPAT-64 demonstrated commendable psychometric properties. This tool allows comprehensive assessment of PC, offering flexibility to users who can measure each dimension with a four-item module or choose modules based on their needs. EPAT-64 serves multiple purposes, including quality improvement and evaluation of interventions aiming to enhance PC. Its versatility empowers users in diverse healthcare settings.

Indexed as

Patient-Centered CarePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPatient SatisfactionAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesHealthcare quality improvementHealth services researchPatient-centred careQuality measurementSurveys

Identifiers

PMID39414377
PMCPMC12505071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.