Objective: To identify the most appropriate generic instrument to measure experience and/or satisfaction of people receiving integrated chronic care.
Background: Health care is becoming more user-centred and, as a result, the experience of users of care and evaluation of their experience and/or satisfaction is taken more seriously. It is unclear to what extent existing instruments are appropriate in measuring the experience and/or satisfaction of people using integrated chronic care.
Methods: Instruments were identified by means of a systematic literature review. Appropriateness of instruments was analysed on seven criteria. The two most promising instruments were translated into Dutch, if necessary, and administered to a convenience sample of 109 people with a chronic illness. Data derived from respondents were analysed statistically. Focus-group interviews were conducted to assess the semantic and technical equivalence as well as opinions of people about the applicability and relevance of the translated instruments.
Results: From 37 instruments identified, the Patients' Assessment of Care for chronIc Conditions (PACIC) and the short form of the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire III (PSQ-18) were selected as most promising instruments. Both instruments produced similar median scores across people with different chronic conditions. The overall PACIC and its subscales and the overall PSQ-18 were highly internally consistent, but not the PSQ-18 subscales. Overall, the PACIC demonstrated better psychometric characteristics. PACIC and PSQ-18 scores were found to be moderately correlated. Whereas more respondents preferred the PSQ-18, focus-group participants regarded the PACIC to be more applicable and relevant. The technical and semantic equivalence of both instruments were sufficient.
Conclusions: Because of its psychometric characteristics, perceived applicability and relevance, the PACIC is the most appropriate instrument to measure the experience of people receiving integrated chronic care.
Comment in: Health Expect. 2010 Jun;13(2):218; author reply 218-9. (PMID: 20536540)
Zaloguj się, aby uzyskać dostęp do pełnego tekstu.