Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41428030›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025

Stakeholder input on the CAHPS ambulatory surveys.

Ron D Hays, Julie A Brown, Emma Bianculli, Marc Elliott

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ron D HaysRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA. drhays@ucla.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6697-907X
Julie A BrownRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Emma BianculliRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Marc ElliottRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA.

Funding

AHRQ HHS [U18HS029321AHRQ HHS U18 HS029321
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS METHODOLOGY: A modified Delphi method was employed using the ExpertLens™ online platform. A panel of 20 members representing a broad stakeholder community, including survey sponsors, survey experts, patient experience advocates, and federal representatives, participated in three phases. The first phase was an initial rating of the essentialness (required, optional, not essential) of 46 existing item topics using a 1 (Not Essential) to 9 (Very Essential) scale with scores of 1-3 used for a topic that should not be included, 4-6 used for a topic that should be optional, and 7-9 for a topic that should be required in a CAHPS survey of health plans, clinicians, or group practices. The second phase was an asynchronous online discussion of the initial ratings, and the third phase was a final rating of the 46 existing item topics. The reliability of ratings was assessed using a mixed-effects analysis of variance model. Means and standard deviations of essentialness ratings were also analyzed. Verbatim comments from the experts were summarized to provide additional insights.

resultsReliability of expert 1-9 essentialness ratings improved from the initial round (reliability = 0.63, intraclass correlation = 0.08) to the final round (reliability = 0.70, intraclass correlation = 0.10). While most existing items were deemed essential by most stakeholders, there were noteworthy (0.08 or larger) increases from the initial to final rating phases in essentialness for items related to digital access, medication reconciliation, provider communication, and appeals processes, and notable decreases for specialist care ratings, access to medical questions during off-hours, and provider knowledge of chronic conditions. Stakeholders emphasized the importance of access to care, communication and coordination, respectful interactions with staff and providers, and clear cost information. Several potential topics missing from current surveys were identified, including unfair treatment, mental health integration, maternity care, language concordance, trust, self-management, patient safety, continuity of care, care coordination, and claims processing.

conclusionsThis study provides valuable insights into stakeholder perspectives on the relevance and potential improvements to CAHPS ambulatory survey content. The findings support revisions to existing items to enhance their clarity and actionability, as well as the inclusion of new topics that reflect evolving healthcare priorities and patient needs. The identified areas for expansion offer opportunities to create more comprehensive and impactful assessments of patient experiences in ambulatory care settings.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareHealth Care SurveysPatient SatisfactionStakeholder ParticipationDelphi TechniqueHumansReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesAmbulatory careCAHPS®ExpertLens™Patient experienceStakeholder input

Identifiers

PMID41428030
PMCPMC12834880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.