ArticleBMC health services research2025
Development and validation of a patient experience assessment questionnaire for evaluating hospital care in Iran.
Article in BMC health services research, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeUnderstanding patient experience is crucial for advancing patient-centered care and improving hospital service quality. This study aimed to design and validate a Persian version of a patient experience assessment questionnaire to evaluate hospital services.
methodsThis descriptive-analytical study on tool development was conducted cross-sectionally during 2021-2022 in Iran. The study consisted of two stages: (1) In the first stage, a deductive approach and comprehensive literature review were employed to develop the initial questionnaire items, based on the framework from prior research titled "Developing a Model for Evaluating Patient Experience in Teaching Hospitals in Iran." (2) In the second stage, validation was carried out by assessing face validity, content validity (using expert panels to evaluate the Content Validity Index (CVI) and Content Validity Ratio (CVR)), and construct validity through confirmatory factor analysis. Sampling for the face validity stage included 30 randomly selected patients, while construct validity was assessed with a sample of 340 participants, of which 300 provided complete and valid data. Reliability was determined using internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and stability (intra-cluster correlation coefficient) measures.
resultsThe initial questionnaire comprised 44 items. Following expert reviews and validation processes, 10 items were removed, resulting in a final version with 33 items. The confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the five-dimensional structure, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.97 and an intra-cluster correlation coefficient of 0.89, indicating strong internal consistency and reliability.
conclusionThis study successfully developed and validated a 33-item questionnaire for assessing patient experience in Iranian hospitals, ensuring cultural relevance and robust psychometric properties.
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.