• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

经验患者中心性问卷(EPAT)的开发和内容效度:从定性数据生成患者报告衡量指标的最佳实践范例。

Development and content validity of the Experienced Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire (EPAT)-A best practice example for generating patient-reported measures from qualitative data.

机构信息

Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

出版信息

Health Expect. 2022 Aug;25(4):1529-1538. doi: 10.1111/hex.13494. Epub 2022 Apr 21.

DOI:10.1111/hex.13494
PMID:35446991
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9327838/
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

To effectively foster patient-centeredness (PC), it is crucial to measure its implementation. So far, there is no German measure to assess PC comprehensively. The aim of this study is to develop and select items for the Experienced Patient-Centeredness (EPAT) Questionnaire, a patient-reported experience measure (PREM). The EPAT intends to assess PC from the perspective of adult patients treated for different chronic diseases in inpatient and outpatient settings in Germany. Furthermore, we aim at providing a best-practice example for developing PREMs from qualitative data.

METHODS

The development process comprised a three-phase mixed-method design: (1) preparation, (2) item generation and (3) item selection and testing of content validity. We generated items using qualitative content analysis based on information from focus groups, key informant interviews and literature search. We selected items using relevance rating and cognitive interviews. Participants were patients from four chronic disease groups (cancer, cardiovascular disease, mental disorder, musculoskeletal disorder) and healthcare experts (e.g., clinicians, researchers, patient representatives).

RESULTS

We conducted six focus groups with a total of 40 patients, key informant interviews with 10 experts and identified 48 PREMs from international literature. After team discussion, we reached a preliminary pool of 152 items. We conducted a relevance rating with 32 experts and 34 cognitive interviews with 21 patients. We selected 125 items assessing 16 dimensions of PC and showed high relevance and comprehensibility.

CONCLUSIONS

The EPAT questionnaire is currently undergoing psychometric testing. The transparent step-by-step report provides a best practice example that other researchers may consider for developing PREMs. Integrating literature and experts with a strong focus on patient feedback ensured good content validity. The EPAT questionnaire will be helpful in assessing PC in routine clinical practice in inpatient and outpatient settings for research and quality improvement.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients were not involved as active members of the research team. While developing the funding proposal, we informally reached out to several patient organizations who all gave us positive feedback on the study aims, thereby confirming their relevance. Those patient organizations endorsed the funding proposal with formal letters of support and supported recruitment by disseminating advertisements for study participation.

摘要

简介

为了有效地培养以患者为中心(PC)的理念,衡量其实施情况至关重要。到目前为止,德国还没有全面评估 PC 的措施。本研究旨在开发并选择用于经验性患者为中心(EPAT)问卷的项目,这是一种患者报告的体验测量工具(PREM)。EPAT 旨在从接受住院和门诊治疗的不同慢性疾病的成年患者的角度评估 PC。此外,我们旨在为从定性数据开发 PREM 提供最佳实践示例。

方法

开发过程包括一个三阶段混合方法设计:(1)准备,(2)项目生成,(3)项目选择和内容有效性测试。我们使用基于焦点小组、关键知情人访谈和文献搜索信息的定性内容分析来生成项目。我们使用相关性评分和认知访谈来选择项目。参与者来自四个慢性疾病组(癌症、心血管疾病、精神障碍、肌肉骨骼疾病)和医疗保健专家(例如临床医生、研究人员、患者代表)。

结果

我们进行了六次共 40 名患者的焦点小组、十次关键知情人访谈,并从国际文献中确定了 48 个 PREM。经过团队讨论,我们得到了一个初步的 152 个项目库。我们进行了 32 名专家的相关性评分和 21 名患者的 34 次认知访谈。我们选择了 125 个项目来评估 16 个 PC 维度,结果表明这些项目具有高度相关性和可理解性。

结论

EPAT 问卷目前正在进行心理测量测试。透明的逐步报告提供了一个最佳实践示例,其他研究人员可以考虑用于开发 PREM。将文献和专家与对患者反馈的强烈关注相结合,确保了良好的内容有效性。EPAT 问卷将有助于在住院和门诊环境中评估常规临床实践中的 PC,以进行研究和质量改进。

患者或公众的贡献

患者没有作为研究团队的积极成员参与。在制定资助提案时,我们非正式地联系了几个患者组织,他们都对研究目标给予了积极的反馈,从而确认了其相关性。这些患者组织通过正式的支持信来支持资助提案,并通过传播研究参与的广告来支持招募。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6f95/9327838/ff44835526f4/HEX-25--g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6f95/9327838/ff44835526f4/HEX-25--g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6f95/9327838/ff44835526f4/HEX-25--g001.jpg

相似文献

1
Development and content validity of the Experienced Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire (EPAT)-A best practice example for generating patient-reported measures from qualitative data.经验患者中心性问卷(EPAT)的开发和内容效度:从定性数据生成患者报告衡量指标的最佳实践范例。
Health Expect. 2022 Aug;25(4):1529-1538. doi: 10.1111/hex.13494. Epub 2022 Apr 21.
2
Through the patients' eyes: psychometric evaluation of the 64-item version of the Experienced Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire (EPAT-64).从患者视角出发:64项版以患者为中心体验问卷(EPAT - 64)的心理测量学评估
BMJ Qual Saf. 2024 Oct 16. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017434.
3
Assessment of patient centredness through patient-reported experience measures (ASPIRED): protocol of a mixed-methods study.通过患者报告体验指标评估以患者为中心程度(ASPIRED):一项混合方法研究的方案
BMJ Open. 2018 Oct 21;8(10):e025896. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025896.
4
Development of a patient-reported outcome measure for psychotherapeutic interventions in people with seizures: A mixed methods study.开发一种针对癫痫患者心理治疗干预的患者报告结局测量工具:混合方法研究。
Epilepsy Behav. 2019 Oct;99:106464. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2019.106464. Epub 2019 Aug 14.
5
The arthritic patients' perspective of measuring treatment efficacy: Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) as a quality tool.关节炎患者对治疗效果的评估:患者报告的体验测量(PREMs)作为一种质量工具。
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2014 Jul-Aug;32(4):547-52. Epub 2014 Jun 30.
6
Development and content validity testing of a colonoscopy-specific patient-reported experience measure: the Patient Experience Colonoscopy Scale (PECS).开发并对结肠镜检查特异性患者报告体验量表(PECS)进行内容效度检验。
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2024 Mar 18;8(1):32. doi: 10.1186/s41687-024-00710-2.
7
Transition of care in a Danish context: translation, cross-cultural adaptation and content validation of CTM-15 and PACT-M.丹麦语境下的过渡期护理:CTM-15 和 PACT-M 的翻译、跨文化调适和内容验证。
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2024 Jun 10;8(1):58. doi: 10.1186/s41687-024-00739-3.
8
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
9
Measuring patient centeredness with German language Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREM)-A systematic review and qualitative analysis according to COSMIN.使用德语版患者报告结局测量量表(PREM)测量以患者为中心的程度-基于 COSMIN 的系统评价和定性分析。
PLoS One. 2022 Nov 29;17(11):e0264045. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264045. eCollection 2022.
10
Development and validation of a patient reported experience measure for experimental cancer medicines (PREM-ECM) and their carers (PREM-ECM-Carer).开发并验证了一种用于实验性癌症药物(PREM-ECM)及其护理人员的患者报告体验测量工具(PREM-ECM-Carer)。
BMC Cancer. 2024 Apr 19;24(1):500. doi: 10.1186/s12885-024-11963-x.

引用本文的文献

1
Development and Psychometric Testing of EPAT-16: A Short and Valid Measure for Patient-Centeredness From the Patient's Perspective.EPAT - 16的开发与心理测量测试:一种从患者视角衡量以患者为中心的简短且有效的方法。
Health Expect. 2025 Jun;28(3):e70296. doi: 10.1111/hex.70296.
2
Development and application of patient-reported experience measures for cancer patients: a scoping review.癌症患者自我报告体验测量方法的开发与应用:一项范围综述
Int J Nurs Stud Adv. 2025 Apr 11;8:100327. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnsa.2025.100327. eCollection 2025 Jun.
3
Patient-Reported Experience Measures in Adult Inpatient Settings: A Systematic Review.

本文引用的文献

1
Assessing the relevance and implementation of patient-centredness from the patients' perspective in Germany: results of a Delphi study.评估德国从患者角度出发的以患者为中心的相关性和实施情况:德尔菲研究的结果。
BMJ Open. 2019 Dec 23;9(12):e031741. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031741.
2
A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient-reported experience measures.患者报告体验测量的有效性和可靠性的系统评价。
Health Serv Res. 2019 Oct;54(5):1023-1035. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13187. Epub 2019 Jun 19.
3
Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co-design pilot.
成人住院患者自我报告的体验指标:一项系统综述
J Nurs Manag. 2024 Nov 23;2024:5166392. doi: 10.1155/jonm/5166392. eCollection 2024.
4
Development and content validation of a questionnaire to assess the social determinants of mental health in clinical practice.一份用于评估临床实践中心理健康社会决定因素的问卷的开发与内容效度验证。
Front Psychiatry. 2024 May 20;15:1377751. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1377751. eCollection 2024.
5
Assessment of relevance and actual implementation of person-centeredness in healthcare and social support services for women with unintended pregnancy in Germany (CarePreg): results of expert workshops.评估德国意外怀孕女性的医疗保健和社会支持服务中以人为中心的相关性和实际实施情况(CarePreg):专家研讨会的结果。
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024 Apr 6;24(1):247. doi: 10.1186/s12884-024-06453-8.
6
Evaluation of a patient-centered communication skills training for nurses (KOMPAT): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.护士以患者为中心的沟通技能培训评估(KOMPAT):一项随机对照试验的研究方案
BMC Nurs. 2024 Jan 2;23(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s12912-023-01660-8.
7
Assessment of person-centeredness in healthcare and social support services for women with unintended pregnancy (CarePreg): protocol for a mixed-method study.评估意外怀孕女性的医疗保健和社会支持服务中的以患者为中心程度(CarePreg):一项混合方法研究的方案。
BMJ Open. 2022 Sep 9;12(9):e066939. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066939.
支持患者和公众参与研究的框架:系统评价与协同设计试点
Health Expect. 2019 Aug;22(4):785-801. doi: 10.1111/hex.12888. Epub 2019 Apr 22.
4
Assessment of patient information needs: A systematic review of measures.患者信息需求评估:测量方法的系统评价
PLoS One. 2019 Jan 31;14(1):e0209165. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209165. eCollection 2019.
5
Assessment of patient centredness through patient-reported experience measures (ASPIRED): protocol of a mixed-methods study.通过患者报告体验指标评估以患者为中心程度(ASPIRED):一项混合方法研究的方案
BMJ Open. 2018 Oct 21;8(10):e025896. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025896.
6
Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer.健康、社会和行为研究量表开发与验证的最佳实践:入门指南。
Front Public Health. 2018 Jun 11;6:149. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149. eCollection 2018.
7
COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study.COSMIN 方法学用于评估患者报告结局测量的内容效度:一项德尔菲研究。
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1159-1170. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0. Epub 2018 Mar 17.
8
The quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision making: A systematic review.评估共同决策过程的工具质量:一项系统综述。
PLoS One. 2018 Feb 15;13(2):e0191747. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191747. eCollection 2018.
9
COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures.COSMIN 患者报告结局测量系统评价指南。
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1147-1157. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3. Epub 2018 Feb 12.
10
Use of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc) in intervention studies-A systematic review.在干预研究中使用9项共同决策问卷(SDM-Q-9和SDM-Q-Doc)——一项系统评价。
PLoS One. 2017 Mar 30;12(3):e0173904. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173904. eCollection 2017.