ArticleBJGP open2026
Challenges in reducing the 10-item CARE Measure to a two-item version: comparison of patients' preferences with psychometric evaluation in a cross-sectional survey in Scotland.
Article in BJGP open, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure is a widely used 10-item measure to assess patients' perceptions of physician empathy. Takahashi
aimTo apply Takahashi DESIGN &
settingIn 2022, a cross-sectional postal survey of 6291 Scottish adults was conducted.
methodUsing Takahashi
resultsIn total, 1053 (17%) of 6291 patients responded. Psychometric evaluation identified items 6 ('Showing care and compassion') and 8 ('Explaining things clearly') as the optimal two-item combination (Cronbach's alpha = 0.916, correlation = 0.953). This differed from patient preferences, with items 3 ('Really listening') and 8 receiving the highest proportion of votes (19% and 17%, respectively). Preferences also varied by age, deprivation level, and consultation complexity. The most popular two-item combination (items 3 and 8) was selected by 10% of responders, with 90% selecting other combinations.
conclusionThe psychometrically optimal two-item combination did not align with patient preferences. Given variation in patient preferences and low agreement, reducing the CARE Measure to two-items may be inadvisable.
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.