ArticleBMC health services research2024
Patients' sense of medical gain on family doctor contracting services in China: scale development and preliminary validation.
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. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimThe system of family doctor contract services is a crucial component of China's primary healthcare system. Patients enrolled in family doctor contract services typically receive more comprehensive health services. However, it remains uncertain whether the family doctor contract services can fully meet the healthcare needs of patients. Despite extensive research on family doctor contract services, there has been relatively little investigation from the perspective of patients' sense of gain, and there are no specific tools available to measure patients' sense of gain in healthcare. Therefore, this study aims to develop a scale to measure patients' sense of gain in family doctor contract services.
methodsThis study enrolled 600 patients under family doctor contracts. It utilized a review of literature and Delphi expert consultation to form the concept of patients' sense of medical gain in the context of family doctor services, establish an item pool, screen items, and evaluate the scale's reliability and validity. Factor analysis assessed the scale's structural validity, while Cronbach's alpha coefficient evaluated its internal consistency. Test-retest reliability and split-half reliability were used to assess the scale's reliability.
resultsThe Patients' Sense of Medical Gain in the context of Family Doctor services(PSMG-FD) scale for assessing sense of medical gain among family doctor contract patients comprises 19 items, categorized into five factors: Medical convenience, continuity, reliability, humanistic care, and experience. Confirmatory factor analysis results indicated satisfactory fit indices: χ2/df = 2.781, RMSEA = 0.077, RMR = 0.031, GFI = 0.875, NFI = 0.918, IFI = 0.946, TLI = 0.934, CFI = 0.945, and RFI = 0.901. The AVE values for different dimensions were 0.544, 0.739, 0.741, 0.755, and 0.654, all surpassing the threshold of 0.5. The CR values for each dimension were 0.820, 0.919, 0.919, 0.925, and 0.850, all exceeding 0.7, indicating satisfactory convergent validity. The interdimensional correlation coefficients were lower than the square roots of the corresponding AVEs, suggesting correlation among latent variables while maintaining sufficient discriminant validity. The PSMG-FD scale demonstrated good reliability and validity, with a Cronbach's α coefficient of 0.947, test-retest reliability of 0.955, and split-half reliability of 0.895.
conclusionThe scale exhibits good reliability and validity, making it a suitable instrument for evaluating sense of medical gain among family doctor contract patients in China.
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.