ArticleInternational journal of integrated care
Development and Validation of a People-Centred Scale for Evaluating Care Pathway Experiences.
Article in International journal of integrated care. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Care pathways (CPs) are essential for ensuring coordinated, high-quality healthcare, yet patient-reported experiences remain underexplored. In Italy, no validated tool exists to systematically assess persons' perspectives on CPs. This study aimed to develop and validate a scale to measure patient-reported experiences with CPs. Methods: A mixed-method approach was used. First, a literature review, a Delphi study involving healthcare professionals, and focus groups with persons and interest-holders informed the generation of items. Next, a pilot test with 218 persons diagnosed with breast cancer refined the scale. Finally, a quantitative study involving 12 CPs across three healthcare organisations assessed the scale's properties using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Results: Factor analysis revealed a four-factor structure encompassing person-centrality, responsiveness, integration, and organisation. The scale demonstrated good internal validity, with satisfactory reliability for most factors. Correlations with overall CP evaluation, satisfaction, and self-reported health provided support for external validity. However, the organisational factor showed lower reliability, requiring further refinement. Discussion: This study provides a robust, multidimensional tool for assessing patients' reported experiences with CPs. Its findings highlight the importance of person-centred care and integrated service delivery. Conclusion: The newly developed scale offers a validated measure to enhance CP evaluation, supporting people-centred healthcare practice and policy improvements.
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.