Hubertus J M Vrijhoef1, Rieneke Berbee, Edward H Wagner, Lotte M G Steuten. 1. University of Maastricht Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences Public Health and Primary Care Research School PO Box 616 6200 MD Maastricht The Netherlands. b.vrijhoef@zw.unimaas.nl
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify the most appropriate generic instrument to measure experience and/or satisfaction of people receiving integrated chronic care. BACKGROUND: Health care is becoming more user-centred and, as a result, the experience of users of care and evaluation of their experience and/or satisfaction is taken more seriously. It is unclear to what extent existing instruments are appropriate in measuring the experience and/or satisfaction of people using integrated chronic care. METHODS: Instruments were identified by means of a systematic literature review. Appropriateness of instruments was analysed on seven criteria. The two most promising instruments were translated into Dutch, if necessary, and administered to a convenience sample of 109 people with a chronic illness. Data derived from respondents were analysed statistically. Focus-group interviews were conducted to assess the semantic and technical equivalence as well as opinions of people about the applicability and relevance of the translated instruments. RESULTS: From 37 instruments identified, the Patients' Assessment of Care for chronIc Conditions (PACIC) and the short form of the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire III (PSQ-18) were selected as most promising instruments. Both instruments produced similar median scores across people with different chronic conditions. The overall PACIC and its subscales and the overall PSQ-18 were highly internally consistent, but not the PSQ-18 subscales. Overall, the PACIC demonstrated better psychometric characteristics. PACIC and PSQ-18 scores were found to be moderately correlated. Whereas more respondents preferred the PSQ-18, focus-group participants regarded the PACIC to be more applicable and relevant. The technical and semantic equivalence of both instruments were sufficient. CONCLUSIONS: Because of its psychometric characteristics, perceived applicability and relevance, the PACIC is the most appropriate instrument to measure the experience of people receiving integrated chronic care.
OBJECTIVE: To identify the most appropriate generic instrument to measure experience and/or satisfaction of people receiving integrated chronic care. BACKGROUND: Health care is becoming more user-centred and, as a result, the experience of users of care and evaluation of their experience and/or satisfaction is taken more seriously. It is unclear to what extent existing instruments are appropriate in measuring the experience and/or satisfaction of people using integrated chronic care. METHODS: Instruments were identified by means of a systematic literature review. Appropriateness of instruments was analysed on seven criteria. The two most promising instruments were translated into Dutch, if necessary, and administered to a convenience sample of 109 people with a chronic illness. Data derived from respondents were analysed statistically. Focus-group interviews were conducted to assess the semantic and technical equivalence as well as opinions of people about the applicability and relevance of the translated instruments. RESULTS: From 37 instruments identified, the Patients' Assessment of Care for chronIc Conditions (PACIC) and the short form of the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire III (PSQ-18) were selected as most promising instruments. Both instruments produced similar median scores across people with different chronic conditions. The overall PACIC and its subscales and the overall PSQ-18 were highly internally consistent, but not the PSQ-18 subscales. Overall, the PACIC demonstrated better psychometric characteristics. PACIC and PSQ-18 scores were found to be moderately correlated. Whereas more respondents preferred the PSQ-18, focus-group participants regarded the PACIC to be more applicable and relevant. The technical and semantic equivalence of both instruments were sufficient. CONCLUSIONS: Because of its psychometric characteristics, perceived applicability and relevance, the PACIC is the most appropriate instrument to measure the experience of people receiving integrated chronic care.
Authors: H C Knudsen; J L Vázquez-Barquero; B Welcher; L Gaite; T Becker; D Chisholm; M Ruggeri; A H Schene; G Thornicroft Journal: Br J Psychiatry Suppl Date: 2000
Authors: Diana M J Delnoij; Guus ten Asbroek; Onyebuchi A Arah; Johan S de Koning; Piet Stam; Aldien Poll; Barbara Vriens; Paul Schmidt; Niek S Klazinga Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2006-03-08 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Kelly Stolzmann; Mark Meterko; Christopher J Miller; Lindsay Belanger; Marjorie Nealon Seibert; Mark S Bauer Journal: J Behav Health Serv Res Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 1.505
Authors: Katherine Mackey; Michael L Parchman; Luci K Leykum; Holly J Lanham; Polly H Noël; John E Zeber Journal: Prim Care Diabetes Date: 2012-01-20 Impact factor: 2.459
Authors: Eindra Aung; Maria Donald; Joseph Coll; Jo Dower; Gail M Williams; Suhail A R Doi Journal: Health Expect Date: 2013-10-24 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Sylvie Lambert; Jane McCusker; Eric Belzile; Mark Yaffe; Chidinma Ihejirika; Julie Richardson; Susan Bartlett Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-01-25 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Rachel L Randell; Millie D Long; Christopher F Martin; Robert S Sandler; Wenli Chen; Kristen Anton; Michael D Kappelman Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 5.325