ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026
Psychometric Evaluation of the Patient-Experienced Continuity of Care Questionnaire (PECQ) Using Rasch Model.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 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.
- Psychometric Evaluation of the Patient-Experienced Continuity of Care Questionnaire (PECQ) Using Rasch Model.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Patient-Experienced Continuity of care Questionnaire (PECQ) was developed to measure continuity of care (CoC) in primary care, but has only been evaluated in accordance with classical test theory, which has some weaknesses compared with modern test theory.
aimThe aim of this study was to evaluate the measurement properties of the PECQ using the Rasch model.
methodData for this psychometric study were collected using questionnaires administered to patients aged 18 years and older with one or more chronic conditions. Participants were consecutively recruited from 18 public primary care centres. The final sample comprised 324 patients (54% female and 46% male) with a mean age of 71.8 years (SD = 12).
resultsThe PECQ demonstrated satisfactory measurement properties in terms of individual item fit, response category functioning, targeting and differential item functioning by age. Minor issues were identified regarding global model fit, local independence, reliability and non-uniform differential item functioning by sex.
conclusionsOverall, the results show that PECQ has sound psychometric properties in adult patients with chronic disease and can be used to measure CoC in primary care settings. IMPACT: This study addresses the need for accurate measurement of patient experiences of CoC, and the Rasch model was therefore used to evaluate the PECQ. As the instrument demonstrated good fit to the Rasch model, the findings have important implications for healthcare researchers, policymakers and practitioners. The PECQ provides a scientifically sound tool for evaluating CoC, enabling more accurate quality assessments and supporting targeted interventions in both Swedish and international primary care contexts where the instrument is adapted. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients were actively involved in the study by participating in the cognitive validation of the questionnaire items. Their contributions helped ensure that the content was understandable, relevant and appropriately tailored to the target population. By providing feedback on the wording and content, the patients contributed to the development of a user-friendly and contextually grounded instrument, which was subsequently validated in this study using the Rasch model.
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.