Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42544076›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026

Further Development and Validation of a Measure of Compassionate Healthcare in Action.

Samantha R Allen, Ellen Huish, Roxanne M Parslow, Elizabeth Marks, Lucy A Clarkson, Sarah Howard, Lucy Maddox

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Further Development and Validation of a Measure of Compassionate Healthcare in Action.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
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

7 authors.

Samantha R AllenUniversity of Bath, Bath, Somerset, UK.ORCID 0009-0007-0692-8845
Ellen HuishUniversity of Bath, Bath, Somerset, UK.
Roxanne M ParslowCentre for Academic Primary Care, University of Bristol, Bristol, South West England, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3612-7121
Elizabeth MarksUniversity of Bath, Bath, Somerset, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6560-0670
Lucy A ClarksonUniversity of Bath, Bath, Somerset, UK.ORCID 0009-0001-6608-6957
Sarah HowardUniversity of Bath, Bath, Somerset, UK.ORCID 0009-0001-6559-436X
Lucy MaddoxUniversity of Bath, Bath, Somerset, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0875-087X

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR301578
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCompassionate Healthcare In Action (CHIA) is a new questionnaire to measure patient experiences of compassionate care, with a particular focus on observable behaviours. It has been designed to address gaps in currently available metrics. It is generalisable across healthcare contexts and has been developed with patient and public involvement throughout. The present study sought to build on earlier development to evaluate the CHIA's face validity, perform item reduction, establish dimensionality, validity and reliability.

methodsFace validity was assessed via cognitive interviews with UK healthcare service users. Interviews used a Three-Step Test Method to understand how CHIA items were used, and which items were considered most/least important in measuring patient experiences of compassionate care (Study 1). Cross-sectional survey data were analysed using inter-item correlations, item discrimination indexes, item and local dependency analyses and exploratory factor analysis. Statistical analyses were combined with cognitive interview data and panel reviewed to inform item reduction (Study 2). A final cross-sectional survey corroborated single-factor dimensionality through confirmatory factor analysis alongside establishing reliability and validity (Study 3).

results21 cognitive interviews established face validity and identified items with stronger face validity (Study 1). These results were combined with survey analyses (n = 311). Seven items were removed resulting in a 14-item CHIA demonstrating a single factor structure (Study 2). In Study 3, further survey analysis (n = 301) reinforced results showing a strong unidimensional structure, internal consistency, test-retest reliability and validity: content, face, convergent and discriminant.

conclusionsThe CHIA is a brief and generalisable metric that evaluates patient perceptions of compassionate care they receive. It has been robustly developed and has strong psychometric properties. The CHIA shows promise for supporting healthcare services to evaluate and improve their care. Further research could examine the CHIA in different contexts and populations. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Lived experience consultants supported prior CHIA development papers. In this paper a lived experience consultant (experience of physical and mental healthcare services) was involved in reviewing methodology and materials, advising on and helping with recruitment, contributing to review panel discussions, reviewing and authoring this manuscript. Additionally, methods throughout sought to amplify the voices of diverse populations who could complete the CHIA.

Indexed as

EmpathyPatient SatisfactionAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdomcarecompassionmeasuremetricquestionnairereliabilityvalidity

Identifiers

PMID42544076
PMCPMC13430277

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.