ArticlePatient preference and adherence2025
Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Psychometric Properties of the Arabic Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems-Clinician and Group Survey (CG-CAHPS): A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2025. 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.
- Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Nursing Management Capacity Scale for Poststroke Dysphagia Based on the Donabedian Model.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Patient experience is a vital component of healthcare quality, playing a significant role in patient-centered care. Despite the global applicability of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems-Clinician and Group Survey (CG-CAHPS), there is a lack of reliable, culturally adapted instruments for assessing patient experience in Arabic-speaking populations. Therefore, we translated, adapted, and validated an Arabic version of the CG-CAHPS to assess patient experiences in Saudi Arabia. Patients and Methods: This cross-sectional study surveyed a convenience sample of 281 outpatients at two heart failure clinics to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Arabic CG-CAHPS-including structural validity, criterion validity, and reliability. The survey consisted of four domains-Access to Care; Communication with Healthcare Professionals; Care Coordination; and Helpful, Courteous, and Respectful Staff. Structural validity was assessed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), both with values greater than 0.90, as well as the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). Reliability was evaluated via Cronbach's alpha (α) for internal consistency, while criterion validity was tested through inter-item correlations with the overall ratings for the recent visit and healthcare provider. Results: The confirmatory factor analysis supported the hypothesized four-factor model, demonstrating adequate structural validity and a good fit (CFI =0.927, TLI =0.906, RMSEA =0.097, and SRMR =0.083). All factor loadings were significant (p < 0.001), ranging from 0.57 to 0.93. Criterion validity was supported by strong correlations between the survey domains and the patient ratings regarding visits and providers-of which the Helpful, Courteous, and Respectful Staff domains showed the highest correlation (r=0.561). Cronbach's alpha demonstrated high internal consistency (α=0.909)-with each domain exceeding the 0.70 threshold. Conclusion: The Arabic CG-CAHPS is a reliable and valid tool for assessing patient experiences in Saudi healthcare settings. Its application can facilitate the enhancement of patient-centered care and contribute to ongoing efforts to improve healthcare quality in Saudi Arabia. Future research should assess the tool's applicability in other healthcare contexts and regional populations.
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.