21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Psychometric validation of a Patient-Centred Quality of Cancer Care Questionnaire in Mexico

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          To develop and validate a Patient-Centred Quality of Cancer Care Questionnaire in Spanish (PCQCCQ-S) appropriate to the Mexican context.

          Design

          Psychometric validation of a questionnaire.

          Setting

          Two public oncology hospitals in Mexico City.

          Participants

          1809 patients with cancer aged ≥18 years.

          Source of information

          Cross-sectional survey.

          Methods

          The validation procedures comprised (1) content validity through a group of experts and patients; (2) item reduction and evaluation of the factor structure, through an exploratory factor analysis based on the polychoric correlation matrix; (3) internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha; (4) convergent validity between the PCQCCQ-S and supportive care needs scale; (5) correlation analysis between the PCQCCQ-S and quality of life scale by calculating Spearman’s rank-correlation coefficient; and (6) differentiation by ‘known groups’ through the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

          Results

          The PCQCCQ-S has 30 items with the following five factors accounting for 96.5% of the total variance: (1) timely care; (2) clarity of the information; (3) information for treatment decision-making; (4) activities to address biopsychosocial needs; and (5) respectful and coordinated care. Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from 0.73 to 0.90 among the factors. PCQCCQ-S has moderate convergent validity with supportive care needs scale, revealing that higher quality is correlated with lower patient needs. PCQCCQ-S has acceptable ability to differentiate by ‘known groups’, showing that older patients and those with low levels of education perceived lower total quality of care as compared with their counterparts.

          Conclusion

          PCQCCQ-S has acceptable psychometric properties and can be used to measure quality of patient-centred cancer care in Mexico and serve as a reference to develop PCQCCQ-S in other Spanish-speaking countries.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Alleviating the access abyss in palliative care and pain relief—an imperative of universal health coverage: the Lancet Commission report

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Who is at greatest risk for receiving poor-quality health care?

            American adults frequently do not receive recommended health care. The extent to which the quality of health care varies among sociodemographic groups is unknown. We used data from medical records and telephone interviews of a random sample of people living in 12 communities to assess the quality of care received by those who had made at least one visit to a health care provider during the previous two years. We constructed aggregate scores from 439 indicators of the quality of care for 30 chronic and acute conditions and for disease prevention. We estimated the rates at which members of different sociodemographic subgroups received recommended care, with adjustment for the number of chronic and acute conditions, use of health care services, and other sociodemographic characteristics. Overall, participants received 54.9 percent of recommended care. Even after adjustment, there was only moderate variation in quality-of-care scores among sociodemographic subgroups. Women had higher overall scores than men (56.6 percent vs. 52.3 percent, P<0.001), and participants below the age of 31 years had higher scores than those over the age of 64 years (57.5 percent vs. 52.1 percent, P<0.001). Blacks (57.6 percent) and Hispanics (57.5 percent) had slightly higher scores than whites (54.1 percent, P<0.001 for both comparisons). Those with annual household incomes over 50,000 dollars had higher scores than those with incomes of less than 15,000 dollars (56.6 percent vs. 53.1 percent, P<0.001). The differences among sociodemographic subgroups in the observed quality of health care are small in comparison with the gap for each subgroup between observed and desirable quality of health care. Quality-improvement programs that focus solely on reducing disparities among sociodemographic subgroups may miss larger opportunities to improve care. Copyright 2006 Massachusetts Medical Society.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient‐reported experience measures

              To identify patient‐reported experience measures ( PREM s), assess their validity and reliability, and assess any bias in the study design of PREM validity and reliability testing. Articles reporting on PREM development and testing sourced from MEDLINE , CINAHL and Scopus databases up to March 13, 2018. Systematic review. Critical appraisal of PREM study design was undertaken using the Appraisal tool for Cross‐Sectional Studies ( AXIS ). Critical appraisal of PREM validity and reliability was undertaken using a revised version of the COSMIN checklist. Eighty‐eight PREM s were identified, spanning across four main health care contexts. PREM validity and reliability was supported by appropriate study designs. Internal consistency (n = 58, 65.2 percent), structural validity (n = 49, 55.1 percent), and content validity (n = 34, 38.2 percent) were the most frequently reported validity and reliability tests. Careful consideration should be given when selecting PREM s, particularly as seven of the 10 validity and reliability criteria were not undertaken in ≥50 percent of the PREM s. Testing PREM responsiveness should be prioritized for the application of PREM s where the end user is measuring change over time. Assessing measurement error/agreement of PREM s is important to understand the clinical relevancy of PREM scores used in a health care evaluation capacity.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2020
                16 March 2020
                : 10
                : 3
                : e033114
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentEpidemiology and Health Services Research Unit CMN Siglo XXI , Mexican Institute of Social Security , Mexico City, Mexico
                [2 ]departmentHospital de Oncología CMN Siglo XXI , Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social , Mexico City, Mexico
                [3 ]departmentInstitute of Social Research , National Autonomous University of Mexico , Mexico City, Mexico
                [4 ]departmentServicio de Oncología , Hospital General de México Dr Eduardo Liceaga , Mexico City, Mexico
                [5 ]departmentSylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center , University of Miami , Miami, Florida, USA
                [6 ]departmentDivision of Social Protection and Health , Inter-American Development Bank , Kingston, Jamaica
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Svetlana V Doubova; svetlana.doubova@ 123456gmail.com
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0521-7095
                Article
                bmjopen-2019-033114
                10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033114
                7076235
                32184306
                9633ba11-5839-4c99-a276-27ca9a3c18b6
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 20 July 2019
                : 03 February 2020
                : 18 February 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: IMSS Research fund in health;
                Award ID: FIS/IMSS/PROT/G17-2/1759
                Categories
                Health Services Research
                1506
                1704
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                patient-centered quality of care,cancer,psychometric validation of scale,mexico
                Medicine
                patient-centered quality of care, cancer, psychometric validation of scale, mexico

                Comments

                Comment on this article