ArticleBMC nephrology2026
Validity and reliability of the Thai version Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems In-Centre Hemodialysis (Thai CAHPS-ICH) survey for maintenance hemodialysis patients.
Article in BMC nephrology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are important tools for evaluating the quality of care from patients' perspectives. Nevertheless, no validated PREMs exist for maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients in Thailand. This study aimed to develop a Thai version of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and System In-center Hemodialysis (CAHPS-ICH) survey and assess its psychometric properties, specifically its validity and reliability.
methodWe conducted the cross-sectional study, using Total Population Sampling among adult patients (≥ 18 years) receiving MHD at the Chiang Mai University Hospital hemodialysis center. The original English version CAHPS-ICH
resultsA total of 189 patients were recruited. The NCC domain CFA model showed a mixed fit (RMSEA = 0.137; CFI = 0.945; SRMR = 0.041). In contrast, the QoC and PI domain CFA models demonstrated an acceptable fit (RMSEA = 0.098; CFI = 0.844; SRMR = 0.071 and RMSEA = 0.066; CFI = 0.843; SRMR = 0.070, respectively). The NCC domain exhibited the strongest correlation with the doctor global rating scale (r = 0.60) and displayed good internal consistency (α = 0.86). The QoC domain indicated positive correlations with the staff and center rating scales (r = 0.65 and 0.58, respectively) and demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.78). The PI domain showed a moderate association with the center global rating scales (r = 0.31), but its internal consistency was not demonstrated (α = 0.53). Most multi-item scale questions showed satisfactory test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.50-0.85).
conclusionDespite the mixed fit observed in the NCC domain CFA, the overall "Thai CAHPS-ICH" survey demonstrates acceptable reliability and concurrent validity among MHD patients at Chiang Mai University Hospital. This validation is a crucial first step toward establishing a patient-centered quality metric for hemodialysis centers in Thailand.
trial registrationThis study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Chiang Mai University (Ethical approval number: MED-2565-09133).
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.