Dataset Information

Development and psychometric evaluation of a measure to evaluate the quality of integrated care: the Patient Assessment of Integrated Elderly Care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Novel population-based integrated care services are being developed to adequately serve the growing number of elderly people. Suitable, reliable and valid measurement instruments are needed to evaluate the quality of care delivered.

Objective

To develop a measure to evaluate the quality of integrated care from the perspective of elderly people, the Patient Assessment of Integrated Elderly Care (PAIEC), and then to assess its psychometric properties.

Methods/design

After the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care was adapted to the PAIEC, a cross-sectional postal-survey study was performed among 223 elderly people who received integrated elderly care and support. We assessed the factor structure, internal consistency, known groups and divergent validity using robust nonparametric tests.

Results

Mean age of participants was 83 years (standard deviation 4.7), and 69% was female. The original five-factor model was rejected; a good fit was found for a three-factor model, when excluding the item on patients' satisfaction with care. The PAIEC and its subscales showed good internal consistency (ordinal alphas > 0.90). Known-groups validity was supported regarding number of medications, prevalence of chronic conditions and home care received. No differences were found between groups based on sociodemographic aspects. Divergent validity was supported by low correlations (Spearman's rank correlation coefficients < 0.30) between PAIEC scales and measures of quality of life, complexity of care needs and frailty.

Conclusion

The PAIEC seems to have considerable potential as a reliable and valid measurement instrument that evaluates quality of integrated care and support from the perspective of elderly people.

SUBMITTER: Uittenbroek RJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5042070 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe primary objective was to translate the Recovering Quality of Life (ReQoL) measures from English to traditional Chinese and assess their psychometric properties in Hong Kong (HK) Chinese population. The secondary objective was to investigate the mental health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of this sample during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.MethodRecovering Quality of Life was translated to Traditional Chinese adhering to standard guideline recommended by the official distributors. Five hundred members of the general population were successfully recruited to participate in a telephone-based survey. The following psychometric properties of the ReQoL were evaluated: construct, convergent, and known-group validity and internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The item measurement invariance was assessed on the basis of differential item functioning (DIF). Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between respondents' characteristics and mental HRQoL.ResultsResults of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported a two-factor structure of the ReQoL. The ReQoL showed significant correlations with the other mental health, quality of life, and well-being measures, which indicated a satisfactory convergent validity. Known-group validity confirmed that ReQoL is able to differentiate between people with different mental health status. The (Cronbach's alpha = 0.91 and 0.76 for positive [PF] and negative [NF] factor), and McDonald's omega of 0.89 (PF = 0.94, NF = 0.82) indicated the ReQoL has good reliability as well as test-retest reliability with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.75. Four items showed negligible DIF with respect to age. Respondents who were highly educated and without psychological problems reported a high ReQoL score.ConclusionTraditional Chinese ReQoL was shown to be a valid and reliable instrument to assess the recovery-focused quality of life in HK general population. Future studies are needed to appraise its psychometric properties in local people experiencing mental disorders.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Successfully implementing eMental health (eMH) interventions in routine mental health care constitutes a major challenge. Reliable instruments to assess implementation progress are essential. The Normalization MeAsure Development (NoMAD) study developed a brief self-report questionnaire that could be helpful in measuring implementation progress. Based on the Normalization Process Theory, this instrument focuses on 4 generative mechanisms involved in implementation processes: coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflexive monitoring. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to translate the NoMAD questionnaire to Dutch and to confirm the factor structure in Dutch mental health care settings. METHODS:Dutch mental health care professionals involved in eMH implementation were invited to complete the translated NoMAD questionnaire. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to verify interpretability of scale scores for 3 models: (1) the theoretical 4-factor structure, (2) a unidimensional model, and (3) a hierarchical model. Potential improvements were explored, and correlated scale scores with 3 control questions were used to assess convergent validity. RESULTS:A total of 262 professionals from mental health care settings in the Netherlands completed the questionnaire (female: 81.7%; mean age: 45 [SD=11]). The internal consistency of the 20-item questionnaire was acceptable (.62≤alpha≤.85). The theorized 4-factor model fitted the data slightly better in the CFA than the hierarchical model (Comparative Fit Index=0.90, Tucker Lewis Index=0.88, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation=0.10, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual=0.12, χ22=22.5, P≤.05). However, the difference is small and possibly not outweighing the practical relevance of a total score and subscale scores combined in one hierarchical model. One item was identified as weak (λCA.2=0.10). A moderate-to-strong convergent validity with 3 control questions was found for the Collective Participation scale (.47≤r≤.54, P≤.05). CONCLUSIONS:NoMAD's theoretical factor structure was confirmed in Dutch mental health settings to acceptable standards but with room for improvement. The hierarchical model might prove useful in increasing the practical utility of the NoMAD questionnaire by combining a total score with information on the 4 generative mechanisms. Future research should assess the predictive value and responsiveness over time and elucidate the conceptual interpretability of NoMAD in eMH implementation practices.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the psychometric properties and construct validity of a survey of primary care providers' (PCPs') experience of specialty care coordination, which is a counterpart to our existing survey ("CSC-Specialist") that measures specialists' experience of specialty care coordination.Data sourcesWe surveyed PCPs from Veterans Health Administration medical centers and community-based outpatient clinics nationwide (N = 1576) in April 2018.Study designWe developed candidate items through literature review, existing surveys, PCP interviews, and expert opinion. We used exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to develop scales and multivariable linear regression to determine their association with PCPs' overall experience of coordination.Data collectionThe online survey included 23 candidate scale items about specialty care coordination and a single item asking respondents to rate their overall experience of specialty care coordination on a 0-10 scale. All VA PCPs were eligible. We sent survey invitations to PCPs following local Section Chiefs' email introduction (N = 926) and by directly emailing two random samples (N = 400 and N = 6653), overall response rate across the three nonoverlapping samples = 24 percent.Principal findingsAnalyses identified 20 items forming 6 scales with strong psychometric properties and predictive power for overall coordination. Two scales are identical to CSC-Specialist scales: "Communication" (k = 3, α = 0.87) and "Data Transfer" (k = 2, α = 0.92); one is similar: "Relationships and Collaboration" (k = 6, α = 0.90). The three remaining scales address the PCP's unique perspective: "Role Clarity" (k = 3, α = 0.85), "Role Agreement" (k = 3, α = 0.75), and "Making Referrals" (k = 3, α = 0.75). The six scales together explained 67 percent of the variance in PCPs' overall coordination experience with specialists.ConclusionsThe Coordination of Specialty Care-Primary Care Provider Survey (CSC-PCP) is a novel 20-item survey that can be used in quality improvement or health services research, alone or in combination with the CSC-Specialist, to evaluate coordination of care as experienced by either or both participants.

Project description:BackgroundThe Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) is a US measure of chronic illness quality of care, based on the influential Chronic Care Model (CCM). It measures a number of aspects of care, including patient activation; delivery system design and decision support; goal setting and tailoring; problem-solving and contextual counselling; follow-up and coordination. Although there is developing evidence of the utility of the scale, there is little evidence about its performance in the United Kingdom (UK). We present preliminary data on the psychometric performance of the PACIC in a large sample of UK patients with long-term conditions.MethodWe collected PACIC, demographic, clinical and quality of care data from patients with long-term conditions across 38 general practices, as part of a wider longitudinal study. We assess rates of missing data, present descriptive and distributional data, assess internal consistency, and test validity through confirmatory factor analysis, and through associations between PACIC scores, patient characteristics and related measures.ResultsThere was evidence that rates of missing data were high on PACIC (9.6% - 15.9%), and higher than on other scales used in the same survey. Most PACIC sub-scales showed reasonable levels of internal consistency (alpha?=?0.68 - 0.94), responses did not demonstrate high skewness levels, and floor effects were more frequent (up to 30.4% on the follow up and co-ordination subscale) than ceiling effects (generally <5%). PACIC demonstrated preliminary evidence of validity in terms of measures of long-term condition care. Confirmatory factor analysis suggested that the five factor PACIC structure proposed by the scale developers did not fit the data: reporting separate factor scores may not always be appropriate.ConclusionThe importance of improving care for long-term conditions means that the development and validation of measures is a priority. The PACIC scale has demonstrated potential utility in this regard, but further assessment is required to assess low levels of completion of the scale, and to explore the performance of the scale in predicting outcomes and assessing the effects of interventions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although the importance of care coordination (CC) is well-recognized, cancer patients often receive poorly coordinated care across varied care settings and different oncology providers. Efforts to improve cancer care are hampered by lack of adequate measures. In this two-part, mixed-method study, we describe the development, refinement, and validation of a new care coordination instrument (CCI) designed to assess cancer patients' perception of CC. METHODS:In Study 1, an initial CCI was developed incorporating questions based on literature review. The items were then modified following four field tests conducted in a large academic hospital with oncology nurses (n?=?20) and cancer patients (n?=?120). This modified instrument was used to determine whether the CCI was able to distinguish CC between two practices (30 GI and 30 myeloma patients) within the same hospital setting. In Study 2, 68 patients receiving community-based care participated in seven focus groups. Based on these discussions, the CCI items were again refined, and psychometric evaluation was conducted to assess the quality of the instrument. RESULTS:Based on field tests, 3 domains of the CCI, Communication, Navigation, and Operational, were defined as critical components of CC. The Operational domain evaluates efficiency of care and is unique to this CCI. The field test demonstrated that GI patients reported significantly better CC Overall and for the Communication and Navigation domains (all p?<?.05). In Study 2, patients expressed concordance with the CCI items and their CC experiences, establishing validity of the CCI. Qualitative analysis of the focus group discussions indicated that the items with the highest frequencies of participants' comments were related to the concepts of Navigator, Team, Survey, and Communication. Quantitative analysis identified items with a limited response range or high rates of "neutral" responses; accordingly, those items were removed. The final CCI survey is a 29 item, multiple-choice questionnaire with excellent reliability, Cronbach's ??=?.922. CONCLUSIONS:We developed a novel, patient-centered tool with excellent psychometric properties that can be utilized across varied practice settings to assess patients' perception of cancer care coordination. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Not required; retrospectively registered ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03594006 20 July 2018.