ArticleMedical science educator2024
New Evidences About Multidimensionality of the Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS) Construct in Undergraduate Medical Students.
Article in Medical science educator, 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.
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
Background: Patient-centered care is becoming a paradigm in medicine. The Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS) is the only tool that measures the patient-centered attitude of healthcare students and professionals. Despite its spread, PPOS has had a poor process of scale modelling and validation and previous studies raised concerns about its psychometric robustness. Objective: This study aims to investigate the PPOS psychometric properties, factor structure, and construct validity on a large sample of undergraduate medical students. Methods: Participants of this cross-sectional single-center study are 1543 first-year medical students. PPOS item validity (internal consistency, test-retest reliability), factor structure (explorative principal axis factoring), and construct validity (convergent-discriminant validity, between-groups invariance) have been investigated. Results: A three-factor not clearly defined solution explaining 34.4% of the variance and containing 14 items out of 18 was retained. Internal consistency was questionable for factor 1 ( Conclusion: Findings in this study corroborate previous evidences about PPOS psychometric limitations and provide new evidence about the multidimensionality of patient-centeredness construct.
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.