Assessing the experience of person-centred coordinated care of people with chronic conditions in the Netherlands: Validation of the Dutch P3CEQ.
care coordination
chronic conditions
patient experience
patient-reported experience measure
person-centred care
validation study
Journal
Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy
ISSN: 1369-7625
Titre abrégé: Health Expect
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815926
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2022
06 2022
Historique:
revised:
28
11
2021
received:
11
08
2021
accepted:
07
02
2022
pubmed:
24
3
2022
medline:
25
5
2022
entrez:
23
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Countries are adapting their health and social care systems to better meet the needs of growing populations with (multiple) chronic conditions. To guide this process, assessment of the 'patient experience' is becoming increasingly important. For this purpose, the Person-Centred Coordinated Care Experience Questionnaire (P3CEQ) was developed in the United Kingdom, and translated into several languages. This study aimed to assess the internal and construct validity of the Dutch P3CEQ to capture the experience of person-centred coordinated care of people with chronic conditions in the Netherlands. Adults with chronic conditions (N = 1098) completed the Dutch P3CEQ, measures of health literacy and patient activation, and reported the use and perceived quality of care services. Data analysis included Principal Component and reliability analysis (internal validity), analysis of variance and Student's T-tests (construct validity). The two-component structure found was pretty much the same as in the UK validation study. Sociodemographic correlates also resembled those found in the United Kingdom. Women, persons who were less educated, less health-literate or less activated experienced less person-centred coordinated care. P3CEQ scores correlated positively with general practitioner performance scores and quality ratings of the total care received. The Dutch P3CEQ is a valid instrument to assess the experience of person-centred coordinated care among people with chronic conditions in the Netherlands. Awareness of inequity and more attention to communication skills in professional training are needed to ensure that care professionals better recognize the needs of women, lower educated or less health-literate persons, and improve their experiences of care. The P3CEQ has been developed in collaboration with a range of stakeholders. Eighteen persons with (multiple) chronic conditions participated as patient representatives and codesign experts in (four) codesign workshops. Other patient representatives participated in cognitive testing of the English-language instrument. The usability of the P3CEQ to capture the experience of person-centred coordinated care of older persons has been examined by interviewing 228 older European service users, including 13 living in the Netherlands, as part of the SUSTAIN project. More than a thousand persons with chronic conditions participated in the validation study of the Dutch P3CEQ.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Countries are adapting their health and social care systems to better meet the needs of growing populations with (multiple) chronic conditions. To guide this process, assessment of the 'patient experience' is becoming increasingly important. For this purpose, the Person-Centred Coordinated Care Experience Questionnaire (P3CEQ) was developed in the United Kingdom, and translated into several languages.
AIM
This study aimed to assess the internal and construct validity of the Dutch P3CEQ to capture the experience of person-centred coordinated care of people with chronic conditions in the Netherlands.
PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS
Adults with chronic conditions (N = 1098) completed the Dutch P3CEQ, measures of health literacy and patient activation, and reported the use and perceived quality of care services. Data analysis included Principal Component and reliability analysis (internal validity), analysis of variance and Student's T-tests (construct validity).
RESULTS
The two-component structure found was pretty much the same as in the UK validation study. Sociodemographic correlates also resembled those found in the United Kingdom. Women, persons who were less educated, less health-literate or less activated experienced less person-centred coordinated care. P3CEQ scores correlated positively with general practitioner performance scores and quality ratings of the total care received.
CONCLUSION
The Dutch P3CEQ is a valid instrument to assess the experience of person-centred coordinated care among people with chronic conditions in the Netherlands. Awareness of inequity and more attention to communication skills in professional training are needed to ensure that care professionals better recognize the needs of women, lower educated or less health-literate persons, and improve their experiences of care.
PATIENT CONTRIBUTION
The P3CEQ has been developed in collaboration with a range of stakeholders. Eighteen persons with (multiple) chronic conditions participated as patient representatives and codesign experts in (four) codesign workshops. Other patient representatives participated in cognitive testing of the English-language instrument. The usability of the P3CEQ to capture the experience of person-centred coordinated care of older persons has been examined by interviewing 228 older European service users, including 13 living in the Netherlands, as part of the SUSTAIN project. More than a thousand persons with chronic conditions participated in the validation study of the Dutch P3CEQ.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35318778
doi: 10.1111/hex.13454
pmc: PMC9122454
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1069-1080Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Feb 14;20(2):e54
pubmed: 29444767
BMJ Open. 2019 Jul 23;9(7):e029721
pubmed: 31337661
Health Res Policy Syst. 2017 Nov 22;15(1):98
pubmed: 29166917
Soc Sci Med. 1996 Sep;43(5):707-20
pubmed: 8870135
Int J Integr Care. 2018 Jan 16;18(1):6
pubmed: 29632456
Value Health. 2005 Mar-Apr;8(2):94-104
pubmed: 15804318
Int J Qual Health Care. 2012 Oct;24(5):476-82
pubmed: 22778146
Fam Pract. 2008 Aug;25(4):287-93
pubmed: 18628243
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Aug 07;15(8):
pubmed: 30087254
BMC Public Health. 2012 Jul 31;12:577
pubmed: 22849664
Qual Life Res. 2005 Feb;14(1):45-55
pubmed: 15789940
Health Serv Res. 2005 Dec;40(6 Pt 1):1918-30
pubmed: 16336556
Int J Integr Care. 2019 Jul 23;19(3):4
pubmed: 31367203
Int J Integr Care. 2019 Sep 26;19(3):19
pubmed: 31592248
Int J Integr Care. 2019 Sep 03;19(3):16
pubmed: 31534444
Health Syst Transit. 2016 Mar;18(2):1-240
pubmed: 27467715
Int J Integr Care. 2021 Jul 13;21(3):3
pubmed: 34305488
Ann Fam Med. 2011 Mar-Apr;9(2):155-64
pubmed: 21403143
Patient Educ Couns. 2002 Dec;48(3):199-200
pubmed: 12477603
Health Expect. 2022 Jun;25(3):1069-1080
pubmed: 35318778
Patient Educ Couns. 2005 Feb;56(2):139-46
pubmed: 15653242
Lancet. 2006 Feb 18;367(9510):550-1
pubmed: 16488782
Prev Med Rep. 2018 Oct 19;12:284-293
pubmed: 30406006
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006 Jul 26;6:35
pubmed: 16872487
Health Policy. 2016 Apr;120(4):431-9
pubmed: 27017047
Healthc Q. 2016;19(2):44-48
pubmed: 27700973
J Prim Care Community Health. 2017 Oct;8(4):319-323
pubmed: 28434390
Scand J Prim Health Care. 2015 Jun;33(2):100-6
pubmed: 25961964
J Intern Med. 2019 Mar;285(3):289-300
pubmed: 30719790
Int J Cardiol. 2016 Oct 15;221:957-62
pubmed: 27441475
Health Expect. 2014 Oct;17(5):608-21
pubmed: 22712877
Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Apr;99(4):631-637
pubmed: 26590706
Int J Equity Health. 2012 Mar 12;11:12
pubmed: 22409902
Int J Qual Health Care. 2019 Aug 1;31(7):506-512
pubmed: 30508089
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Nov 22;17(1):768
pubmed: 29166897
J Patient Exp. 2018 Sep;5(3):201-211
pubmed: 30214927
BMJ. 2017 Dec 4;359:j5541
pubmed: 29203549