Author:
Cai Yiyuan,Guo Pengfei,Tu Jiong,Hu Mengyao,Liu Lingrui,Ryan Bridget L.,Liao Jing,Dev Rubee,Li Yiran,Huang Tianyu,Wang Ruilin,Kuang Li,Huang Ruonan,Li Xinfang,Melipillán Edmundo Roberto,Zhao Shuaixiang,He Wenjun,Wang Xiaohui,Zhang Nan,Xu Dong
Abstract
Abstract
Background
An English version of the Patient Perception of Patient-Centeredness (PPPC) scale was recently revised, and it is necessary to test this instrument in different primary care populations.
Aim
This study aimed to assess the validity and reliability of a Chinese version of the PPPC scale.
Design
A mixed method was used in this study. The Delphi method was used to collect qualitative and quantitative data to address the content validity of the PPPC scale by calculating the Content Validity Index, Content Validity Ratio, the adjusted Kappa, and the Item Impact Score. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were used to assess the construct validity of the PPPC scale through a cross-sectional survey. The internal consistency was also assessed.
Setting/participants
In the Delphi consultation, seven experts were consulted through a questionnaire sent by email. The cross-sectional survey interviewed 188 outpatients in Guangzhou city and 108 outpatients in Hohhot City from community health service centers or stations face-to-face.
Results
The 21 items in the scale were relevant to their component. The Item-level Content Validity Index for each item was higher than 0.79, and the average Scale-level content validity index was 0.97 in each evaluation round. The initial proposed 4-factor CFA model did not fit adequately. Still, we found a 3-factor solution based on our EFA model and the validation via the CFA model (model fit: $${\chi }^{2}=294.573$$
χ
2
=
294.573
, P < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.044, CFI = 0.981; factor loadings: 0.553 to 0.888). Cronbach's α also indicated good internal consistency reliability: The overall Cronbach's α was 0.922, and the Cronbach's α for each factor was 0.851, 0.872, and 0.717, respectively.
Conclusions
The Chinese version of the PPPC scale provides a valuable tool for evaluating patient-centered medical service quality.
Funder
the China National Natural Science Foundation
the National Key R&D Program of China
the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
the China Medical Board
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference39 articles.
1. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: A new health care system for the 21st century. Washington: National Academy Press; 2001.
2. Hudon C, Fortin M, Haggerty JL, Lambert M, Poitras ME. Measuring patients’ perceptions of patient-centered care: a systematic review of tools for family medicine. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9(2):155–64.
3. McMillan SS, Kendall E, Sav A, et al. Patient-centered approaches to health care: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70(6):567–96.
4. Nguyen TN, Ngangue PA, Ryan BL, et al. The revised Patient Perception of Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire: Exploring the factor structure in French-speaking patients with multimorbidity. Health Expect. 2020;23(4):904–9.
5. Stewart M, Brown JB, Donner A, et al. The impact of patientcentered care on outcomes. J Fam Pract. 2000;49(9):796–804.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献