ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025
Development and Psychometric Testing of EPAT-16: A Short and Valid Measure for Patient-Centeredness From the Patient's Perspective.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient-reported experiences and patient-reported experience measures in primary care, home care, and community settings. A scoping review.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Pooled it
- [Measuring patient experiences in healthcare-overview of methods and the Experienced Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire (EPAT) as an example].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe previously developed the EPAT-64, a patient-reported experience measure designed to assess patient-centeredness (PC) across 16 dimensions of the validated integrative model of PC. While its modular structure makes it highly adaptable to examine certain dimensions of PC, generating an overall PC score requires assessing all 64 items. This is often challenging in routine settings with limited resources. Therefore, we developed and psychometrically tested a 16-item short form.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study involving adult inpatients and outpatients receiving treatment for cardiovascular diseases, cancer, musculoskeletal disorders and mental health conditions in Germany. To ensure comprehensive content coverage, we selected one item per dimension based on content relevance as well as item characteristics such as item difficulty and item-total correlation. We assessed the structural validity of a unidimensional model using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), measured reliability with McDonald's Omega and evaluated construct validity by investigating the intercorrelation of the EPAT-16 sum score with measures of general health status and satisfaction with care.
resultsAll items of the final EPAT-16 showed high acceptability and good item-total correlations, with approximately two-thirds demonstrating appropriate item difficulty. CFA showed a slight misfit of the unidimensional model, but a high average variance explained. McDonald's Omega showed high reliability. All hypotheses about construct validity were confirmed.
conclusionsThe EPAT-16 demonstrated good psychometric properties, making it a feasible tool for assessing overall PC when resource constraints preclude using the full EPAT-64. In particular, it can be used in routine care for feedback and quality improvement, as well as in research to assess relationships with other relevant variables. Since its items were designed generically, it can be used for different medical conditions and settings, for example for public reporting. Future research should evaluate the EPAT-16 in diverse, independent patient samples to confirm that its positive characteristics are consistent across different populations and cultures. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients did not participate as active members of the research team. However, for the research proposal, several patient organizations provided positive feedback on the study aims and their relevance, signed a collaboration agreement and later supported recruitment by distributing study information.
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.