OBJECTIVE: To describe the validity and reliability of the Italian version of the EUROPEP instrument for patient evaluation of general practice care. METHODS: A survey was performed among patients who visited a general practice (n=983), using the 23-item EUROPEP questionnaire. The scores are aggregated in two dimensions: "clinical behaviour" and "organization of care". The cultural adaptation of the questionnaire into Italian has been performed by using the formal translation procedures applied in other European countries. Data were analysed with respect to item response rate, item-scale correlation, internal consistency reliability and construct validity of the instrument. RESULTS: The item response rate was good for 17 items, acceptable for four items and problematic for one item. The item-scale correlation largely exceeded a value of 0.40 for all items in both scales. The internal consistency of the aggregated scores was also very good, the reliability coefficients being 0.95 for "clinical behaviour" and 0.90 for "organization of care". As expected, older age and better health status were associated with more positive evaluation of care. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms that, even in its Italian version, the EUROPEP is a valid and easy-to-use instrument for gathering information on patients' experience with and evaluation of general practice care.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the validity and reliability of the Italian version of the EUROPEP instrument for patient evaluation of general practice care. METHODS: A survey was performed among patients who visited a general practice (n=983), using the 23-item EUROPEP questionnaire. The scores are aggregated in two dimensions: "clinical behaviour" and "organization of care". The cultural adaptation of the questionnaire into Italian has been performed by using the formal translation procedures applied in other European countries. Data were analysed with respect to item response rate, item-scale correlation, internal consistency reliability and construct validity of the instrument. RESULTS: The item response rate was good for 17 items, acceptable for four items and problematic for one item. The item-scale correlation largely exceeded a value of 0.40 for all items in both scales. The internal consistency of the aggregated scores was also very good, the reliability coefficients being 0.95 for "clinical behaviour" and 0.90 for "organization of care". As expected, older age and better health status were associated with more positive evaluation of care. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms that, even in its Italian version, the EUROPEP is a valid and easy-to-use instrument for gathering information on patients' experience with and evaluation of general practice care.