Observational studyBMJ open2025
Gothenburg direct observation tool for assessing person-centred care (GDOT-PCC): evaluation of inter-rater reliability.
Observational study in BMJ open, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the inter-rater reliability of the Gothenburg direct observation tool-person-centred care in assessing healthcare professionals' competency in delivering person-centred care (PCC).
designObservational, fully-crossed inter-rater reliability study.
settingThe study was conducted between October and December 2022 at the participants' homes or offices. PARTICIPANTS AND
methodsSix health professionals individually rated 10 video-recorded, simulated consultations against the 53-item, 15-domain tool covering four major areas: PCC activities, clinician manner, clinician skills and PCC goals. Cronbach's α was used to assess internal consistency. Intraclass correlations (ICC) and 95% CI were computed for the domains.
resultsTwo domains (planning and documentation and documentation) were excluded from analyses due to insufficient evaluable data. Cronbach's α was acceptable (>0.70) for all evaluated domains. ICC values were high (ICC ≥0.75) for 11 of the 13 domains; however, CIs were generally wide and the lower bounds fell within the good range (ICC=0.60-0.74) for six domains and fair agreement (ICC=0.40-0.59) for the remaining six. The ICC for the domain patient perspective was non-informative due to its wide CIs (ICC=0.74 (0.39-0.92)).
conclusionICC estimates for most domains were comparable to or exceeded those reported for similar direct observation tools for assessing PCC, suggesting that they may reliably be used in, for example, education and quality improvement applications. Reliability for the domains planning and documentation and documentation needs to be assessed in studies sampling more documentation behaviours. Reliability for the patient perspective domain may owe to methodological issues and should be reassessed in larger, better-designed studies.
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.