ArticleBMC health services research2025
Arabic translation and psychometric validation of the revised Patient Perception of Patient-Centeredness (PPPC-R) questionnaire.
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. 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.
- Listening to the Patient's Voice: A Quantitative Study on Patient-Centredness in Diabetes Care in Palestinian Public Primary Care Services.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Revised Patient Perception of Patient-Centeredness (PPPC-R) scale was originally formulated in English to examine patient-centeredness.
objectiveTo translate and validate the PPPC-R questionnaire into Arabic. METHODOLOGY: Translating the PPPC-R into Arabic involved forward and back translations by bilingual experts. Content validity was checked through the Item and Scale Content Validity Indices. The instrument underwent pilot testing and was then completed by 179 patients in the emergency department to examine construct validity using both confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses. Reliability was tested using Cronbach’s alpha to ensure internal consistency.
resultsThe Item Content Validity Index ranged between 0.66 and 1, and the Scale Content Validity Index was 0.96. Initial confirmatory factor analysis of the Arabic-PPPC-R revealed an inadequate fit, prompting an exploratory factor analysis with Promax rotation, which identified three factors that explained 66.3% of the variance. The refined model, tested again using confirmatory factor analysis, demonstrated an acceptable fit with improved statistical measures, including CFI and TLI values above 0.90 and RMSEA of 0.07. Reliability testing revealed high internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.949 for the full scale and between 0.889 and 0.906 for the individual subscales.
conclusionThe study findings showed that the Arabic version of the PPPC-R has good structural characteristics and is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring patient-centeredness.
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.