Dataset Information

Cross-Cultural Validation of the Patient Perception of Integrated Care Survey.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To test the cross-cultural validity of the U.S. Patient Perception of Integrated Care (PPIC) Survey in a Dutch sample using a standardized procedure.

Data sources

Primary data collected from patients of five primary care centers in the south of the Netherlands, through survey research from 2014 to 2015.

Study design

Cross-sectional data collected from patients who saw multiple health care providers during 6 months preceding data collection.

Data collection

The PPIC survey includes 59 questions that measure patient perceived care integration across providers, settings, and time. Data analysis followed a standardized procedure guiding data preparation, psychometric analysis, and included invariance testing with the U.S. dataset.

Principal findings

Latent scale structures of the Dutch and U.S. survey were highly comparable. Factor "Integration with specialist" had lower reliability scores and noninvariance. For the remaining factors, internal consistency and invariance estimates were strong.

Conclusions

The standardized cross-cultural validation procedure produced strong support for comparable psychometric characteristics of the Dutch and U.S. surveys. Future research should examine the usability of the proposed procedure for contexts with greater cultural differences.

SUBMITTER: Tietschert MV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5980165 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cross-Cultural Validation of the Patient Perception of Integrated Care Survey.

Tietschert Maike V MV Angeli Federica F van Raak Arno J A AJA Ruwaard Dirk D Singer Sara J SJ

Health services research 20170720 3

<h4>Objective</h4>To test the cross-cultural validity of the U.S. Patient Perception of Integrated Care (PPIC) Survey in a Dutch sample using a standardized procedure.<h4>Data sources</h4>Primary data collected from patients of five primary care centers in the south of the Netherlands, through survey research from 2014 to 2015.<h4>Study design</h4>Cross-sectional data collected from patients who saw multiple health care providers during 6 months preceding data collection.<h4>Data collection</h4> ...[more]

PMID: 28726236

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn recent literature, patient portals are considered as important tools for the delivery of patient-centered care. To date, it is not clear how patients would conceptualize a patient portal and which health information needs they have when doing so.ObjectiveThis study aimed (1) to investigate health information needs, expectations, and attitudes toward a patient portal and (2) to assess whether determinants, such as patient characteristics, health literacy, and empowerment status, can predict two different variables, namely the importance people attribute to obtaining health information when using a patient portal and the expectations concerning personal health care when using a patient portal.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of the Flemish population on what patients prefer to know about their digital health data and their expectations and attitudes toward using a patient portal to access their electronic health record. People were invited to participate in the survey through newsletters, social media, and magazines. We used a questionnaire including demographics, health characteristics, health literacy, patient empowerment, and patient portal characteristics.ResultsWe received 433 completed surveys. The health information needs included features such as being notified when one's health changes (371/396, 93.7%), being notified when physical parameters increase to dangerous levels (370/395, 93.7%), observing connections between one's symptoms or diseases or biological parameters (339/398, 85.2%), viewing the evolution of one's health in function of time (333/394, 84.5%), and viewing information about the expected effect of treatment (349/395, 88.4%). Almost 90% (369/412) of respondents were interested in using a patient portal. Determinants of patients' attachment for obtaining health information on a patient portal were (1) age between 45 and 54 years (P=.05); (2) neutral (P=.03) or interested attitude (P=.008) toward shared decision making; and (3) commitment to question physicians' decisions (P=.03, R2=0.122). Determinants of patients' expectations on improved health care by accessing a patient portal were (1) lower education level (P=.04); (2) neutral (P=.03) or interested attitude (P=.008) toward shared decision making; and (3) problems in understanding health information (P=.04; R2=0.106).ConclusionsThe interest in using a patient portal is considerable in Flanders. People would like to receive alerts or some form of communication from a patient portal in case they need to act to manage their health. Determinants such as education, attached importance to shared decision making, difficulties in finding relevant health information, and the attached importance in questioning the decisions of physicians need to be considered in the design of a patient portal.

Project description:BackgroundSurveys on Patient Safety Culture™ (SOPS®) Hospital Survey (HSOPS 1.0), developed by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality in 2004, has been widely adopted in the United States and internationally. An updated version, the SOPS Hospital Survey 2.0 (HSOPS 2.0), released in 2019, has not yet been applied in China. The aim of the present study was to translate HSOPS 2.0 into Chinese version with cross-cultural adaptations and test its psychometric properties.MethodsA convenience sample was used. Hospital nurses (N = 1013) and a sub-set (n = 200) was invited for the re-test. A three-stage study was conducted. Firstly, the HSOPS 2.0 was translated by a panel. Secondly, the content validity was tested using the two-round Delphi method and cognitive interview. Next, the construct validity was tested by the confirmatory factor analysis and further demonstrated by the convergent validity, discriminant validity, and correlations with the outcome of patient safety. Thirdly, the reliability was tested by internal consistency reliability and re-test reliability.ResultsThe "float or PRN" and "manager" words were deleted as considered unfitted for the Chinese health care system. The content validity index provided evidence of strong content validity (I-CVI = 0.84 ~ 1.00, S-CVI = 0.98). Confirmatory factor analysis revealed a good model fit (χ2/df = 4.05, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.94) and acceptable factor loadings (0.41 ~ 0.97). Convergent validity, and discriminant validity supported the factorial structure of the Chinese version of HSOPS 2.0. Further evidence for the construct validity was derived from correlations with the outcome of patient safety (r = 0.10 ~ 0.41). A good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.68 ~ 0.93, McDonald's omega = 0.84 ~ 0.96) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.78 ~ 0.95) showed acceptable reliability. Additionally, Chinese nurses reported markedly lower scores for three dimensions, including "Response to Error", "Communication Openness", and "Reporting Patient Safety Events", when comparing the findings of this study with those from U.S. research utilizing the HSOPS 2.0.ConclusionThe Chinese version of HSOPS 2.0 demonstrated good validity and reliability in a Chinese sample of hospital nurses, which suggests that it can be used to measure nurse-perceived patient safety culture in future research and practice. Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of HSOPS 2.0 among other Chinese healthcare professionals remain to be confirmed.

Project description:ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to translate the Intensive Care Oral Care Frequency and Assessment Scale into Chinese and to evaluate its reliability and validity in Chinese ICU patients.MethodsThis study was conducted using a cross-sectional survey design in ICUs of three tertiary hospitals in Huai'an and Taizhou from October 2022 to April 2023. The Chinese version of the Intensive Care Oral Care Frequency and Assessment Scale (C-ICOCFAS) was developed by expert consultation and cultural adaptation according to the two-person verbatim translation-back translation criteria described in the Brislin model. Item analysis was conducted using correlation analysis, and validity analysis included content validity, construct validity, and criterion validity. Reliability analyses included Cronbach's alpha coefficient, Guttman split-half reliability, and interrater reliability.ResultsThe Chinese version of the scale consisted of one dimension and nine items, consistent with the original version. Exploratory factor analysis showed KMO = 0.891, and the cumulative variance contribution reached 65.534 %. The confirmatory factor analysis indicated a good fit, χ2/df = 2.124, NFI = 0.950, GFI = 0.942, IFI = 0.973, CFI = 0.973, SRMR = 0.037, and RMSEA = 0.073. The content validity of the scale was 0.97, and the content validity of the items ranged from 0.83 to 1.00; the criterion validity was 0.969; the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.919; the total item correlation coefficient was 0.725-0.831; the Guttman split-half reliability was 0.919; and the interrater reliability was 0.885.ConclusionThe C-ICOCFAS has good reliability and validity and can effectively guide nurses in the frequency of oral care for ICU patients.Implications for clinical practiceThis tool can significantly improve the level of oral care among ICU patients and further promote the health and safety of patients. These findings can help clinical nursing experts to better understand and master the use of scales and standards to improve nursing.

Dataset Information

Cross-Cultural Validation of the Patient Perception of Integrated Care Survey.

Objective

Data sources

Study design

Data collection

Principal findings

Conclusions

Publications

Cross-Cultural Validation of the Patient Perception of Integrated Care Survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets