ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2026
Multi-professional primary healthcare centres: psychometric testing of a new quality-of-care instrument.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2026. 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
backgroundCurrently there is no tool to measure the quality of multi-professional primary healthcare centres (MPHCC) that: (i) includes both the patient perspective and the healthcare professional (HCP) perspective, (ii) explores several aspects of care quality, and (iii) has been validated using advanced psychometric methods. However, it is important that MPHCC quality is evaluated by patients with multimorbidity because they are frequent users and require complex and extensive care. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to construct a questionnaire to allow patients with multimorbidity to measure MPHCC quality. METHODOLOGY: An item bank of 72 items structured into nine domains was administered to a large sample of patients with multimorbidity, followed at eight rural or semi-rural MPHCCs. The statistical analyses included methods derived from the Classical Test Theory (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.70) and the Item Response Theory (Loevinger’s H > 0.30) to select items/domains and to ensure robust psychometric properties without being too long for patients.
resultsA total of 507 patients were recruited. The statistical analysis of the participants’ responses allowed developing a questionnaire called QUALSOPRIM, that included only five of the nine original domains: “HCPs’ availability”, “Medical-technical care”, “General practitioner’s expertise”, “Patient-HCP relationships and communication”, and “Main informal caregiver’s role in the care pathway”. Each domain had acceptable internal consistency and met the Item Response Theory assumptions (unidimensionality, monotonicity and local independence).
conclusionsThe QUALSOPRIM questionnaire includes five domains that can be used by patients to assess MPHCC quality. Each domain is succinct and can be used also on its own with relative ease in clinical practice. The psychometric results of the QUALSOPRIM questionnaire must be confirmed in an independent sample of patients to establish its external validity.
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.