Through the patients' eyes: psychometric evaluation of the 64-item version of the Experienced Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire (EPAT-64).

IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMJ Quality & Safety Pub Date : 2024-10-16 DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017434
Eva Christalle, Stefan Zeh, Hannah Führes, Alica Schellhorn, Pola Hahlweg, Jördis Maria Zill, Martin Härter, Carsten Bokemeyer, Jürgen Gallinat, Christoffer Gebhardt, Christina Magnussen, Volkmar Müller, Katharina Schmalstieg-Bahr, André Strahl, Levente Kriston, Isabelle Scholl
{"title":"Through the patients' eyes: psychometric evaluation of the 64-item version of the Experienced Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire (EPAT-64).","authors":"Eva Christalle, Stefan Zeh, Hannah Führes, Alica Schellhorn, Pola Hahlweg, Jördis Maria Zill, Martin Härter, Carsten Bokemeyer, Jürgen Gallinat, Christoffer Gebhardt, Christina Magnussen, Volkmar Müller, Katharina Schmalstieg-Bahr, André Strahl, Levente Kriston, Isabelle Scholl","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017434","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are valuable tools to evaluate patient-centredness (PC) from the patients' perspective. Despite their utility, a comprehensive PREM addressing PC has been lacking. To bridge this gap, we developed the preliminary version of the Experienced Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire (EPAT), a disease-generic tool based on the integrative model of PC comprising 16 dimensions. It demonstrated content validity. This study aimed to test its psychometric properties and to develop a final 64-item version (EPAT-64).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this cross-sectional study, we included adult patients treated for cardiovascular diseases, cancer, musculoskeletal diseases and mental disorders in inpatient or outpatient settings in Germany. For each dimension of PC, we selected four items based on item characteristics such as item difficulty and corrected item-total correlation. We tested structural validity using confirmatory factor analysis, examined reliability by McDonald's Omega and tested construct validity by examining correlations with general health status and satisfaction with care.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analysis of data from 2.024 patients showed excellent acceptance and acceptable item-total correlations for all EPAT-64 items, with few items demonstrating ceiling effects. The confirmatory factor analysis indicated the best fit for a bifactor model, where each item loaded on both a general factor and a dimension-specific factor. Omega showed high reliability for the general factor, while varying for specific dimensions. Construct validity was confirmed by absence of strong correlations with general health status and a strong correlation of the general factor with satisfaction with care.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>EPAT-64 demonstrated commendable psychometric properties. This tool allows comprehensive assessment of PC, offering flexibility to users who can measure each dimension with a four-item module or choose modules based on their needs. EPAT-64 serves multiple purposes, including quality improvement and evaluation of interventions aiming to enhance PC. Its versatility empowers users in diverse healthcare settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017434","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are valuable tools to evaluate patient-centredness (PC) from the patients' perspective. Despite their utility, a comprehensive PREM addressing PC has been lacking. To bridge this gap, we developed the preliminary version of the Experienced Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire (EPAT), a disease-generic tool based on the integrative model of PC comprising 16 dimensions. It demonstrated content validity. This study aimed to test its psychometric properties and to develop a final 64-item version (EPAT-64).

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we included adult patients treated for cardiovascular diseases, cancer, musculoskeletal diseases and mental disorders in inpatient or outpatient settings in Germany. For each dimension of PC, we selected four items based on item characteristics such as item difficulty and corrected item-total correlation. We tested structural validity using confirmatory factor analysis, examined reliability by McDonald's Omega and tested construct validity by examining correlations with general health status and satisfaction with care.

Results: Analysis of data from 2.024 patients showed excellent acceptance and acceptable item-total correlations for all EPAT-64 items, with few items demonstrating ceiling effects. The confirmatory factor analysis indicated the best fit for a bifactor model, where each item loaded on both a general factor and a dimension-specific factor. Omega showed high reliability for the general factor, while varying for specific dimensions. Construct validity was confirmed by absence of strong correlations with general health status and a strong correlation of the general factor with satisfaction with care.

Conclusions: EPAT-64 demonstrated commendable psychometric properties. This tool allows comprehensive assessment of PC, offering flexibility to users who can measure each dimension with a four-item module or choose modules based on their needs. EPAT-64 serves multiple purposes, including quality improvement and evaluation of interventions aiming to enhance PC. Its versatility empowers users in diverse healthcare settings.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过患者的眼睛:64 项体验式患者中心感问卷(EPAT-64)的心理测量评估。
背景:患者报告体验测量法(PREM)是从患者角度评估以患者为中心(PC)的重要工具。尽管PREM很有用,但一直缺乏针对以患者为中心的综合PREM。为了填补这一空白,我们开发了体验式患者中心感问卷(EPAT)的初步版本,这是一种基于患者中心感综合模型的疾病通用工具,包含 16 个维度。该问卷具有内容效度。本研究旨在测试其心理测量特性,并开发出最终的 64 项问卷版本(EPAT-64):在这项横断面研究中,我们纳入了在德国住院或门诊接受心血管疾病、癌症、肌肉骨骼疾病和精神障碍治疗的成年患者。对于 PC 的每个维度,我们根据项目难度和校正后的项目-总相关性等项目特征选择了四个项目。我们使用确认性因子分析检验了结构效度,使用麦当劳欧米茄检验了信度,并通过检验与总体健康状况和护理满意度的相关性检验了构架效度:对 2024 名患者的数据进行分析后发现,所有 EPAT-64 项目的接受度都很高,项目与项目之间的相关性也可以接受,很少有项目出现天花板效应。确认性因子分析显示,双因子模型最适合,即每个项目都负载于一个一般因子和一个特定维度因子上。Omega 显示一般因子的可靠性很高,而特定维度的可靠性则各不相同。结构效度得到了证实,因为它与一般健康状况没有很强的相关性,而一般因子与护理满意度有很强的相关性:EPAT-64具有值得称道的心理测量特性。该工具可对个人护理进行全面评估,为用户提供了灵活性,他们可以用一个四项目模块来测量每个维度,也可以根据自己的需要选择模块。EPAT-64 有多种用途,包括质量改进和评估旨在提高个人防护能力的干预措施。它的多功能性使用户能够在不同的医疗环境中使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Quality & Safety
BMJ Quality & Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
104
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement. The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.
期刊最新文献
What do clinical practice guidelines say about deprescribing? A scoping review. Understanding the enablers and barriers to implementing a patient-led escalation system: a qualitative study. Assessing patient work system factors for medication management during transition of care among older adults: an observational study. Sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll: the only reasons for regulators to target individuals. Patient-activated escalation in hospital: patients and their families are ready!
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1