OBJECTIVE: To create a patient-reported, multidimensional physician/patient interpersonal processes of care (IPC) instrument appropriate for patients from diverse racial/ethnic groups that allows reliable, valid, and unbiased comparisons across these groups. DATA SOURCE/DATA COLLECTION: Data were collected by telephone interview. The survey was administered in English and Spanish to adult general medicine patients, stratified by race/ethnicity and language (African Americans, English-speaking Latinos, Spanish-speaking Latinos, non-Latino whites) (N=1,664). STUDY DESIGN/ METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, items were designed to be appropriate for diverse ethnic groups based on focus groups, our prior framework, literature, and cognitive interviews. Multitrait scaling and confirmatory factor analysis were used to examine measurement invariance; we identified scales that allowed meaningful quantitative comparisons across four race/ethnic/language groups. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The final instrument assesses several subdomains of communication, patient-centered decision making, and interpersonal style. It includes 29 items representing 12 first-order and seven second-order factors with equivalent meaning (metric invariance) across groups; 18 items (seven factors) allowed unbiased mean comparison across groups (scalar invariance). Final scales exhibited moderate to high reliability. CONCLUSIONS: The IPC survey can be used to describe disparities in interpersonal care, predict patient outcomes, and examine outcomes of quality improvement efforts to reduce health care disparities.
OBJECTIVE: To create a patient-reported, multidimensional physician/patient interpersonal processes of care (IPC) instrument appropriate for patients from diverse racial/ethnic groups that allows reliable, valid, and unbiased comparisons across these groups. DATA SOURCE/DATA COLLECTION: Data were collected by telephone interview. The survey was administered in English and Spanish to adult general medicine patients, stratified by race/ethnicity and language (African Americans, English-speaking Latinos, Spanish-speaking Latinos, non-Latino whites) (N=1,664). STUDY DESIGN/ METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, items were designed to be appropriate for diverse ethnic groups based on focus groups, our prior framework, literature, and cognitive interviews. Multitrait scaling and confirmatory factor analysis were used to examine measurement invariance; we identified scales that allowed meaningful quantitative comparisons across four race/ethnic/language groups. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The final instrument assesses several subdomains of communication, patient-centered decision making, and interpersonal style. It includes 29 items representing 12 first-order and seven second-order factors with equivalent meaning (metric invariance) across groups; 18 items (seven factors) allowed unbiased mean comparison across groups (scalar invariance). Final scales exhibited moderate to high reliability. CONCLUSIONS: The IPC survey can be used to describe disparities in interpersonal care, predict patient outcomes, and examine outcomes of quality improvement efforts to reduce health care disparities.
Authors: M C Beach; L A Cooper; K A Robinson; E G Price; T L Gary; M W Jenckes; A Gozu; C Smarth; A Palacio; C J Feuerstein; E B Bass; N R Powe Journal: Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ) Date: 2004-01
Authors: Rachel L Johnson; Somnath Saha; Jose J Arbelaez; Mary Catherine Beach; Lisa A Cooper Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Robert Weech-Maldonado; Leo S Morales; Marc Elliott; Karen Spritzer; Grant Marshall; Ron D Hays Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Anna M Nápoles; Jasmine Santoyo-Olsson; Leah S Karliner; Helen O'Brien; Steven E Gregorich; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2010-02
Authors: Marilyn M Schapira; Kathlyn E Fletcher; Pamela S Ganschow; Elizabeth A Jacobs; Cindy M Walker; Alicia J Smallwood; Denisse Gil; Arshia Faghri; Amanda L Kong; Tina W Yen; Susan McDunn; Elizabeth Marcus; Joan M Neuner Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2019-06-25 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Lucy B Spalluto; Carolyn M Audet; Velma McBride Murry; Claudia P Barajas; Katina R Beard; Thoris T Campbell; Debbie Thomas; Maureen Sanderson; Chang Yu; Robert S Dittus; Christianne L Roumie; Consuelo H Wilkins; Martha J Shrubsole Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2019-07-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Mónica E López; Celia P Kaplan; Anna M Nápoles; E Shelley Hwang; Jennifer C Livaudais; Leah S Karliner Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2013-09-17
Authors: Richard O White; Rosette J Chakkalakal; Caroline A Presley; Aihua Bian; Jonathan S Schildcrout; Kenneth A Wallston; Shari Barto; Sunil Kripalani; Russell Rothman Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2016-09-23
Authors: Young Kyung Do; William R Carpenter; Pamela Spain; Jack A Clark; Robert J Hamilton; Joseph A Galanko; Anne Jackman; James A Talcott; Paul A Godley Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2009-09-24 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Jennifer L Barton; Laura Trupin; Chris Tonner; John Imboden; Patricia Katz; Dean Schillinger; Edward Yelin Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Marilyn L Kwan; Emily K Tam; Isaac J Ergas; David H Rehkopf; Janise M Roh; Marion M Lee; Carol P Somkin; Anita L Stewart; Lawrence H Kushi Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 4.872