Contextualizing the revised Patient Perception of Patient-Centeredness (PPPC-R) scale in primary healthcare settings: a validity and reliability evaluation study.
Contextualizing the revised Patient Perception of Patient-Centeredness (PPPC-R) scale in primary healthcare settings: a validity and reliability evaluation study.
复制标题
将修订后的患者以患者为中心(PPPC-R)量表应用于初级保健环境：一项效度和可靠性评估研究。
DOI：
10.1186/s12875-023-02227-x
复制
发表时间：
2024-01-05
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Xu, Dong (Roman)
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cai, Yiyuan;Guo, Pengfei;Tu, Jiong;Hu, Mengyao;Liu, Lingrui;Ryan, Bridget L.;Liao, Jing;Dev, Rubee;Li, Yiran;Huang, Tianyu;Wang, Ruilin;Kuang, Li;Huang, Ruonan;Li, Xinfang;Melipillan, Edmundo Roberto;Zhao, Shuaixiang;He, Wenjun;Wang, Xiaohui;Zhang, Nan;Xu, Dong (Roman)
最近修订了英文版的患者感知以患者为中心（PPPC）量表，有必要在不同的初级保健人群中测试该工具。本研究旨在评估中文版PPPC量表的信度和效度。本研究采用混合方法。使用德尔菲法收集定性和定量数据，通过计算内容效度指数、内容效度比、调整后的Kappa和项目影响评分来解决PPPC量表的内容效度。通过横断面调查，采用验证性因素分析（CFA）和探索性因素分析（EFA）对PPPC量表的结构效度进行评价。还评估了内部一致性。在德尔菲咨询中，通过电子邮件发送的调查问卷咨询了七位专家。采用横断面调查方法，对广州市和呼和浩特市社区卫生服务中心（站）的188名门诊患者和108名门诊患者进行面对面调查。量表中的21个项目与其组成部分相关。每一轮评估中，每个项目的项目级内容效度指数均大于0.79，量表级内容效度指数平均值为0.97。最初提出的4因素CFA模型并不适合。尽管如此，我们还是发现了一个基于我们的EFA模型和CFA模型验证的3因子解决方案（模型拟合：P < 0.001，RMSEA = 0.044，CFI = 0.981;因子载荷：0.553至0.888）。Cronbach’s α也显示了良好的内部一致性信度：总体Cronbach’s α为0.922，每个因素的Cronbach’s α分别为0.851、0.872和0.717。中文版PPPC量表为以病人为中心的医疗服务质量评价提供了一个有价值的工具。在线版本包含补充材料，可通过10.1186/s12875-023-02227-x获得。
An English version of the Patient Perception of Patient-Centeredness (PPPC) scale was recently revised, and it is necessary to test this instrument in different primary care populations. This study aimed to assess the validity and reliability of a Chinese version of the PPPC scale. A mixed method was used in this study. The Delphi method was used to collect qualitative and quantitative data to address the content validity of the PPPC scale by calculating the Content Validity Index, Content Validity Ratio, the adjusted Kappa, and the Item Impact Score. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were used to assess the construct validity of the PPPC scale through a cross-sectional survey. The internal consistency was also assessed. In the Delphi consultation, seven experts were consulted through a questionnaire sent by email. The cross-sectional survey interviewed 188 outpatients in Guangzhou city and 108 outpatients in Hohhot City from community health service centers or stations face-to-face. The 21 items in the scale were relevant to their component. The Item-level Content Validity Index for each item was higher than 0.79, and the average Scale-level content validity index was 0.97 in each evaluation round. The initial proposed 4-factor CFA model did not fit adequately. Still, we found a 3-factor solution based on our EFA model and the validation via the CFA model (model fit: , P < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.044, CFI = 0.981; factor loadings: 0.553 to 0.888). Cronbach's α also indicated good internal consistency reliability: The overall Cronbach's α was 0.922, and the Cronbach's α for each factor was 0.851, 0.872, and 0.717, respectively. The Chinese version of the PPPC scale provides a valuable tool for evaluating patient-centered medical service quality. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-023-02227-x.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2.5
作者：
Rathert, Cheryl;Wyrwich, Mary D.;Boren, Suzanne Austin
通讯作者：
Boren, Suzanne Austin
影响因子：
2.7
作者：
Kimberlin, Carole L.;Winterstein, Almut G.
通讯作者：
Winterstein, Almut G.
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Reinders, Marcel E.;Blankenstein, Annette H.;van Marwijk, Harm W. J.
通讯作者：
van Marwijk, Harm W. J.
影响因子：
3.9
作者：
Meredith, L;Stewart, M;Brown, JB
通讯作者：
Brown, JB
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Nguyen Tu Ngoc;Ngangue, Patrice Alain;Fortin, Martin
通讯作者：
Fortin, Martin