Dataset Information

Prospective cohort study protocol to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure (QTAC-PREM).

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patient-centeredness is a key component of health care quality. However, patient-centered measures of quality have not been developed in injury care. In response to this challenge, we developed the Quality of Trauma Adult Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure (QTAC-PREM) to measure injured patient experiences with trauma care and pilot-tested the instrument at a single Level 1 trauma centre. The objective of this study is to test the reliability, validity, and feasibility of the QTAC-PREM in multiple Canadian trauma centers and to refine the measure based on the results.

Methods/design

This will be a prospective cohort study of consecutive adult (age ? 18 years) patients discharged from three trauma centres in Alberta, Canada with a primary diagnosis of injury. The target sample size is 400 participants to ensure precision for evaluating test-retest reliability. We will assess the psychometric properties of the measure (test-retest reliability, construct validity, internal consistency) and whether these properties vary by patient characteristics. We will also evaluate the predictive validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the measure against other established tools (HCAHPS).

Discussion

A reliable and valid measure of patient reported experiences with injury care may be a valuable tool to evaluate quality of care and guide improvement efforts.

SUBMITTER: Bobrovitz N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3623625 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prospective cohort study protocol to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure (QTAC-PREM).

Bobrovitz Niklas N Santana Maria M Kline Theresa T Kortbeek John J Stelfox Henry T HT

BMC health services research 20130314

<h4>Background</h4>Patient-centeredness is a key component of health care quality. However, patient-centered measures of quality have not been developed in injury care. In response to this challenge, we developed the Quality of Trauma Adult Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure (QTAC-PREM) to measure injured patient experiences with trauma care and pilot-tested the instrument at a single Level 1 trauma centre. The objective of this study is to test the reliability, validity, and feasibility o ...[more]

PMID: 23496959

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported experience measures aim to capture the patient's perspective of what happened during a care encounter and how it happened. However, due to a lack of guidance to support patient-reported experience measure development and reporting, the content validity of many instruments is unclear and ambiguous. Thus, the aim of this study was to establish the content validity of a newly developed Emergency Department Patient-Reported Experience Measure (ED PREM).MethodsED PREM items were developed based on the findings of a systematic mixed studies review, and qualitative interviews with Emergency Department patients that occurred during September and October, 2020. Individuals who participated in the qualitative interviews were approached again during August 2021 to participate in the ED PREM content validation study. The preliminary ED PREM comprised 37 items. A two-round modified, online Delphi study was undertaken where patient participants were asked to rate the clarity, relevance, and importance of ED PREM items on a 4-point content validity index scale. Each round lasted for two-weeks, with 1 week in between for analysis. Consensus was a priori defined as item-level content validity index scores of ≥0.80. A scale-level content validity index score was also calculated.ResultsFifteen patients participated in both rounds of the online Delphi study. At the completion of the study, two items were dropped and 13 were revised, resulting in a 35-item ED PREM. The scale-level content validity index score for the final 35-item instrument was 0.95.ConclusionsThe newly developed ED PREM demonstrates good content validity and aligns strongly with the concept of Emergency Department patient experience as described in the literature. The ED PREM will next be administered in a larger study to establish its' construct validity and reliability. There is an imperative for clear guidance on PREM content validation methodologies. Thus, this study may inform the efforts of other researchers undertaking PREM content validation.

Project description:Study designMulticenter validation study.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to translate and adapt the AOSpine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) into English, and test its psychometric properties among North-American spine trauma patients.Summary of background dataIn the absence of an outcome instrument specifically designed and validated for traumatic spinal column injury patients, it is difficult to measure the effect size of various treatment options. The AOSpine Knowledge Forum Trauma initiated a project and developed the AOSpine PROST consisting of 19 items.MethodsPatients were recruited from two level-1 North-American trauma centers. For concurrent validity, next to AOSpine PROST also 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) was filled out by patients. Patient characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Floor and ceiling effects as well as the number of inapplicable and missing questions were analyzed for content validity. Cronbach α and item-total correlation coefficients (ITCCs) were calculated for internal consistency. Spearman correlation tests were performed within AOSpine PROST items and in correlation to SF-36. Test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Factor analysis was performed to explore any dimensions within AOSpine PROST.ResultsThe AOSpine PROST was translated adapted into English using established guidelines. Of 196 enrolled patients, 162 (82.7%) met the inclusion criteria and provided sufficient data. Content validity showed good results, and no floor and ceiling effects were seen. The internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach α = 0.97; ITCC 0.50-0.90) as well as test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.97). Spearman correlations were good (0.29-0.85). The strongest correlations of AOSpine PROST with SF-36 were seen with the physical components (0.69-0.82; P < 0.001). Factor analysis revealed two possible dimensions (Eigen values >1), explaining 75.7% of variance.ConclusionThe English version of AOSpine PROST showed very good validity and reliability. It is considered as a valuable tool, and has the potential to contribute to the reduction of ongoing controversies in spine trauma care.Level of evidence2.

Project description:Recent advances in upper limb prosthetics include sensory restoration techniques and osseointegration technology that introduce additional risks, higher costs, and longer periods of rehabilitation. To inform regulatory and clinical decision making, validated patient reported outcome measures are required to understand the relative benefits of these interventions. The Patient Experience Measure (PEM) was developed to quantify psychosocial outcomes for research studies on sensory-enabled upper limb prostheses. While the PEM was responsive to changes in prosthesis experience in prior studies, its psychometric properties had not been assessed. Here, the PEM was examined for structural validity and reliability across a large sample of people with upper limb loss (n = 677). The PEM was modified and tested in three phases: initial refinement and cognitive testing, pilot testing, and field testing. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to discover the underlying factor structure of the PEM items and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) verified the structure. Rasch partial credit modeling evaluated monotonicity, fit, and magnitude of differential item functioning by age, sex, and prosthesis use for all scales. EFA resulted in a seven-factor solution that was reduced to the following six scales after CFA: social interaction, self-efficacy, embodiment, intuitiveness, wellbeing, and self-consciousness. After removal of two items during Rasch analyses, the overall model fit was acceptable (CFI = 0.973, TLI = 0.979, RMSEA = 0.038). The social interaction, self-efficacy and embodiment scales had strong person reliability (0.81, 0.80 and 0.77), Cronbach's alpha (0.90, 0.80 and 0.71), and intraclass correlation coefficients (0.82, 0.85 and 0.74), respectively. The large sample size and use of contemporary measurement methods enabled identification of unidimensional constructs, differential item functioning by participant characteristics, and the rank ordering of the difficulty of each item in the scales. The PEM enables quantification of critical psychosocial impacts of advanced prosthetic technologies and provides a rigorous foundation for future studies of clinical and prosthetic interventions.

Dataset Information

Prospective cohort study protocol to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure (QTAC-PREM).

Background

Methods/design

Discussion

Publications

Prospective cohort study protocol to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Quality of Trauma Care Patient-Reported Experience Measure (QTAC-PREM).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets