ArticleBMC health services research2024
Development and validation of the Chinese patient-centered integrated care scale.
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 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing a readiness evaluation framework for public hospital-led digital home nursing services in China: a Delphi-AHP study.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Comparing patient and healthcare professional preferences for patient-centered integrated care in China: a best-worst scaling study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Construction of a conceptual model and preliminary content development for patient-reported outcomes measurement after total hip arthroplasty: from a Chinese perspective.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Urban Chinese Community-Dwelling Older Adults' Expectations Regarding the Delivery of Integrated Care Through Case Managers: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Barriers and facilitators for stroke patients' adherence to rehabilitation in China: a qualitative study based on medical experts.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThe healthcare system is currently facing challenges in transitioning to a more integrated, patient-centered care. China has implemented various practical exploration and pilot programs in developing an integrated healthcare service system. However, there remains an absence of appropriate instrument to assess integrated care from the patient's perspective, particularly one that aligns with China's national conditions.
methodsUsing a literature review, Delphi methods, a pilot study involving 171 chronic patients in Guangdong Province, and the analytic hierarchy process, we developed and validated the Chinese Patient-Centered Integrated Care (CPCIC) with a weighting system.
resultsThe results of exploratory factor analysis indicated CPCIC scale had robust structural validity. The overall Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.868, signifying excellent internal consistency. The final scale included four first-level indicators (dimensions): services responsiveness, services convenience, services continuity and services coordination and 14 s-level indicators (items). The assigned weights of these dimensions were 0.1070, 0.2926, 0.4155 and 0.1849, respectively.
conclusionsThe four-dimension, 14-item CPCIC scale with a weighting system was successfully developed and validated. The scale provides a reliable and valid instrument for evaluating the degree of integrated care from the patient's perspective, and has potential applications in informing the reform of China's healthcare system to enhance patient-centered care.
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.