BACKGROUND: Quality of care remains a priority issue and is correlated with patient experience. Measuring multidimensional patient primary care experiences in multiprofessional clinics requires a robust instrument. Although many exist, little is known about their quality. OBJECTIVE: To identify patient perception instruments in multiprofessional primary care and evaluate their quality. METHODS: Systematic review using Medline, Pascal, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Cochrane, Scopus, and CAIRN. Eligible articles developed, evaluated, or validated 1 or more self-assessment instruments. The instruments had to measure primary care delivery, patient primary care experiences and assess at least 3 quality-of-care dimensions. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to assess methodological quality of included studies. Instrument measurement properties were appraised using 3 possible quality scores. Data were combined to provide best-evidence synthesis based on the number of studies, their methodological quality, measurement property appraisal, and result consistency. Subscales used to capture patient primary care experiences were extracted and grouped into the 9 Institute of Medicine dimensions. RESULTS: Twenty-nine articles were found. The included instruments captured many subscales illustrating the diverse conceptualization of patient primary care experiences. No included instrument demonstrated adequate validity and the lack of scientific methodology for assessing reliability made interpreting validity questionable. No study evaluated instrument responsiveness. CONCLUSION: Numerous patient self-assessment instruments were identified capturing a wide range of patient experiences, but their measurement properties were weak. Research is required to develop and validate a generic instrument for assessing quality of multiprofessional primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.
BACKGROUND: Quality of care remains a priority issue and is correlated with patient experience. Measuring multidimensional patient primary care experiences in multiprofessional clinics requires a robust instrument. Although many exist, little is known about their quality. OBJECTIVE: To identify patient perception instruments in multiprofessional primary care and evaluate their quality. METHODS: Systematic review using Medline, Pascal, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Cochrane, Scopus, and CAIRN. Eligible articles developed, evaluated, or validated 1 or more self-assessment instruments. The instruments had to measure primary care delivery, patient primary care experiences and assess at least 3 quality-of-care dimensions. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to assess methodological quality of included studies. Instrument measurement properties were appraised using 3 possible quality scores. Data were combined to provide best-evidence synthesis based on the number of studies, their methodological quality, measurement property appraisal, and result consistency. Subscales used to capture patient primary care experiences were extracted and grouped into the 9 Institute of Medicine dimensions. RESULTS: Twenty-nine articles were found. The included instruments captured many subscales illustrating the diverse conceptualization of patient primary care experiences. No included instrument demonstrated adequate validity and the lack of scientific methodology for assessing reliability made interpreting validity questionable. No study evaluated instrument responsiveness. CONCLUSION: Numerous patient self-assessment instruments were identified capturing a wide range of patient experiences, but their measurement properties were weak. Research is required to develop and validate a generic instrument for assessing quality of multiprofessional primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.
Authors: Ludmila Marcinowicz; Mikolaj Rybaczuk; Ryszard Grebowski; Slawomir Chlabicz Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2010-06-13 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Christina M Van der Feltz-Cornelis; Patricia Van Oppen; Harm W J Van Marwijk; Edwin De Beurs; Richard Van Dyck Journal: Gen Hosp Psychiatry Date: 2004 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.238
Authors: Jasper M Schellingerhout; Arianne P Verhagen; Martijn W Heymans; Bart W Koes; Henrica C de Vet; Caroline B Terwee Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-07-07 Impact factor: 4.147