Marijn Scholte1, Catharina W M Neeleman-van der Steen2, Erik J M Hendriks3, Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden1, Jozé Braspenning1. 1. IQ Healthcare, University Medical Centre St. Radboud, PO Box 9101, 114, Nijmegen 6500 HB, The Netherlands IQ Healthcare, Geert Grooteplein 21, Nijmegen 6525 EZ, The Netherlands. 2. Caransscoop, Beekbergen, The Netherlands Caransscoop, Saltshof 1229, Wijchen 6604 EC, The Netherlands. 3. Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, Maastricht 6200 MD, The Netherlands Faculty of Health, P. Debyeplein 1, Maastricht 6229 HA, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate measurement properties of a set of public quality indicators on physical therapy. DESIGN: An observational study with web-based collected survey data (2009 and 2010). SETTING: Dutch primary care physical therapy practices. PARTICIPANTS: In 3743 physical therapy practices, 11 274 physical therapists reporting on 30 patients each. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Eight quality indicators were constructed: screening and diagnostics (n= 2), setting target aim and subsequent of intervention (n = 2), administrating results (n = 1), global outcome measures (n = 2) and patient's treatment agreement (n = 1). Measurement properties on content and construct validity, reproducibility, floor and ceiling effects and interpretability of the indicators were assessed using comparative statistics and multilevel modeling. RESULTS: Content validity was acceptable. Construct validity (using known group techniques) of two outcome indicators was acceptable; hypotheses on age, gender and chronic vs. acute care were confirmed. For the whole set of indicators reproducibility was approximated by correlation of 2009 and 2010 data and rated moderately positive (Spearman's ρ between 0.3 and 0.42 at practice level) and interpretability as acceptable, as distinguishing between patient groups was possible. Ceiling effects were assessed negative as they were high to extremely high (30% for outcome indicator 6-95% for administrating results). CONCLUSION: Weaknesses in data collection should be dealt with to reduce bias and to reduce ceiling effects by randomly extracting data from electronic medical records. More specificity of the indicators seems to be needed, and can be reached by focusing on most prevalent conditions, thus increasing usability of the indicators to improve quality of care.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate measurement properties of a set of public quality indicators on physical therapy. DESIGN: An observational study with web-based collected survey data (2009 and 2010). SETTING: Dutch primary care physical therapy practices. PARTICIPANTS: In 3743 physical therapy practices, 11 274 physical therapists reporting on 30 patients each. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Eight quality indicators were constructed: screening and diagnostics (n= 2), setting target aim and subsequent of intervention (n = 2), administrating results (n = 1), global outcome measures (n = 2) and patient's treatment agreement (n = 1). Measurement properties on content and construct validity, reproducibility, floor and ceiling effects and interpretability of the indicators were assessed using comparative statistics and multilevel modeling. RESULTS: Content validity was acceptable. Construct validity (using known group techniques) of two outcome indicators was acceptable; hypotheses on age, gender and chronic vs. acute care were confirmed. For the whole set of indicators reproducibility was approximated by correlation of 2009 and 2010 data and rated moderately positive (Spearman's ρ between 0.3 and 0.42 at practice level) and interpretability as acceptable, as distinguishing between patient groups was possible. Ceiling effects were assessed negative as they were high to extremely high (30% for outcome indicator 6-95% for administrating results). CONCLUSION: Weaknesses in data collection should be dealt with to reduce bias and to reduce ceiling effects by randomly extracting data from electronic medical records. More specificity of the indicators seems to be needed, and can be reached by focusing on most prevalent conditions, thus increasing usability of the indicators to improve quality of care.
Authors: Rob Ab Oostendorp; Hans Elvers; Emiel van Trijffel; Geert M Rutten; Gwendolyne Gm Scholten-Peeters; Marcel Heijmans; Erik Hendriks; Emilia Mikolajewska; Margot De Kooning; Marjan Laekeman; Jo Nijs; Nathalie Roussel; Han Samwel Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2018-11-08 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Arie C Verburg; Simone A van Dulmen; Henri Kiers; Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden; Philip J van der Wees Journal: ERJ Open Res Date: 2022-08-15
Authors: Rob A B Oostendorp; Hans Elvers; Emiel van Trijffel; Geert M Rutten; Gwendolyne G M Scholten-Peeters; Margot De Kooning; Marjan Laekeman; Jo Nijs; Nathalie Roussel; Han Samwel Journal: Front Pain Res (Lausanne) Date: 2022-08-30
Authors: Marijn Scholte; Catherina W M Neeleman-van der Steen; Philip J van der Wees; Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden; Jozé Braspenning Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-08-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Marijn Scholte; Simone A van Dulmen; Catherina W M Neeleman-Van der Steen; Philip J van der Wees; Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden; Jozé Braspenning Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2016-11-08 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Rob A B Oostendorp; J W Hans Elvers; Emiel van Trijffel; Geert M Rutten; Gwendolyne G M Scholten-Peeters; Marcel Heijmans; Erik Hendriks; Emilia Mikolajewska; Margot De Kooning; Marjan Laekeman; Jo Nijs; Nathalie Roussel; Han Samwel Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2020-03-02 Impact factor: 2.711