Person-centered care assessment tool with a focus on quality healthcare: a systematic review of psychometric properties.
P-CAT
PCC
Person-centered care
Person-centered care assessment tool
Standards
Validity
Journal
BMC psychology
ISSN: 2050-7283
Titre abrégé: BMC Psychol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101627676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Apr 2024
19 Apr 2024
Historique:
received:
17
05
2023
accepted:
07
04
2024
medline:
20
4
2024
pubmed:
20
4
2024
entrez:
19
4
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The person-centered care (PCC) approach plays a fundamental role in ensuring quality healthcare. The Person-Centered Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT) is one of the shortest and simplest tools currently available for measuring PCC. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the evidence in validation studies of the P-CAT, taking the "Standards" as a frame of reference. First, a systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA method. Second, a systematic descriptive literature review of validity tests was conducted following the "Standards" framework. The search strategy and information sources were obtained from the Cochrane, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and PubMed databases. With regard to the eligibility criteria and selection process, a protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022335866), and articles had to meet criteria for inclusion in the systematic review. A total of seven articles were included. Empirical evidence indicates that these validations offer a high number of sources related to test content, internal structure for dimensionality and internal consistency. A moderate number of sources pertain to internal structure in terms of test-retest reliability and the relationship with other variables. There is little evidence of response processes, internal structure in measurement invariance terms, and test consequences. The various validations of the P-CAT are not framed in a structured, valid, theory-based procedural framework like the "Standards" are. This can affect clinical practice because people's health may depend on it. The findings of this study show that validation studies continue to focus on the types of validity traditionally studied and overlook interpretation of the scores in terms of their intended use.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The person-centered care (PCC) approach plays a fundamental role in ensuring quality healthcare. The Person-Centered Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT) is one of the shortest and simplest tools currently available for measuring PCC. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the evidence in validation studies of the P-CAT, taking the "Standards" as a frame of reference.
METHODS
METHODS
First, a systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA method. Second, a systematic descriptive literature review of validity tests was conducted following the "Standards" framework. The search strategy and information sources were obtained from the Cochrane, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and PubMed databases. With regard to the eligibility criteria and selection process, a protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022335866), and articles had to meet criteria for inclusion in the systematic review.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of seven articles were included. Empirical evidence indicates that these validations offer a high number of sources related to test content, internal structure for dimensionality and internal consistency. A moderate number of sources pertain to internal structure in terms of test-retest reliability and the relationship with other variables. There is little evidence of response processes, internal structure in measurement invariance terms, and test consequences.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
The various validations of the P-CAT are not framed in a structured, valid, theory-based procedural framework like the "Standards" are. This can affect clinical practice because people's health may depend on it. The findings of this study show that validation studies continue to focus on the types of validity traditionally studied and overlook interpretation of the scores in terms of their intended use.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38641852
doi: 10.1186/s40359-024-01716-7
pii: 10.1186/s40359-024-01716-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
217Subventions
Organisme : Effects of mindfulness training on psychological distress and quality of life of the family caregiver
ID : HIM/2015/017/SSA.1207
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy; 2001.
International Alliance of Patients’ Organizations. What is patient-centred healthcare? A review of definitions and principles. 2nd ed. London, UK: International Alliance of Patients’ Organizations; 2007.
World Health Organization. WHO global strategy on people-centred and integrated health services: interim report. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2015.
Britten N, Ekman I, Naldemirci Ö, Javinger M, Hedman H, Wolf A. Learning from Gothenburg model of person centred healthcare. BMJ. 2020;370:m2738.
pubmed: 32873594
doi: 10.1136/bmj.m2738
Van Diepen C, Fors A, Ekman I, Hensing G. Association between person-centred care and healthcare providers’ job satisfaction and work-related health: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e042658.
pubmed: 33293327
pmcid: 7722824
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042658
Ekman N, Taft C, Moons P, Mäkitalo Å, Boström E, Fors A. A state-of-the-art review of direct observation tools for assessing competency in person-centred care. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020;109:103634.
pubmed: 32531569
doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103634
American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on Person-Centered Care. Person-centered care: a definition and essential elements. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016;64:15–8.
doi: 10.1111/jgs.13866
McCormack B, McCance TV. Development of a framework for person-centred nursing. J Adv Nurs. 2006;56:472–9.
pubmed: 17078823
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04042.x
McCormack B, McCance T. Person-centred practice in nursing and health care: theory and practice. Chichester, England: Wiley; 2016.
Nolan MR, Davies S, Brown J, Keady J, Nolan J. Beyond person-centred care: a new vision for gerontological nursing. J Clin Nurs. 2004;13:45–53.
pubmed: 15028039
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2004.00926.x
McCormack B, McCance T. Person-centred nursing: theory, models and methods. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.
doi: 10.1002/9781444390506
Abraha I, Rimland JM, Trotta FM, Dell’Aquila G, Cruz-Jentoft A, Petrovic M, et al. Systematic review of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological interventions to treat behavioural disturbances in older patients with dementia. The SENATOR-OnTop series. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e012759.
pubmed: 28302633
pmcid: 5372076
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012759
Anderson K, Blair A. Why we need to care about the care: a longitudinal study linking the quality of residential dementia care to residents’ quality of life. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2020;91:104226.
pubmed: 32950909
doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2020.104226
Bauer M, Fetherstonhaugh D, Haesler E, Beattie E, Hill KD, Poulos CJ. The impact of nurse and care staff education on the functional ability and quality of life of people living with dementia in aged care: a systematic review. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;67:27–45.
pubmed: 29729501
doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2018.04.019
Smythe A, Jenkins C, Galant-Miecznikowska M, Dyer J, Downs M, Bentham P, et al. A qualitative study exploring nursing home nurses’ experiences of training in person centred dementia care on burnout. Nurse Educ Pract. 2020;44:102745.
pubmed: 32200294
doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102745
McCormack B, Borg M, Cardiff S, Dewing J, Jacobs G, Janes N, et al. Person-centredness– the ‘state’ of the art. Int Pract Dev J. 2015;5:1–15.
doi: 10.19043/ipdj.51.trib
Wilberforce M, Challis D, Davies L, Kelly MP, Roberts C, Loynes N. Person-centredness in the care of older adults: a systematic review of questionnaire-based scales and their measurement properties. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16:63.
pubmed: 26951641
pmcid: 4782329
doi: 10.1186/s12877-016-0229-y
Rathert C, Wyrwich MD, Boren SA. Patient-centered care and outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70:351–79.
pubmed: 23169897
doi: 10.1177/1077558712465774
Sharma T, Bamford M, Dodman D. Person-centred care: an overview of reviews. Contemp Nurse. 2016;51:107–20.
doi: 10.1080/10376178.2016.1150192
Ahmed S, Djurkovic A, Manalili K, Sahota B, Santana MJ. A qualitative study on measuring patient-centered care: perspectives from clinician-scientists and quality improvement experts. Health Sci Rep. 2019;2:e140.
pubmed: 31890898
pmcid: 6920695
doi: 10.1002/hsr2.140
Edvardsson D, Fetherstonhaugh D, Nay R, Gibson S. Development and initial testing of the person-centered Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT). Int Psychogeriatr. 2010;22:101–8.
pubmed: 19631005
doi: 10.1017/S1041610209990688
Tamagawa R, Groff S, Anderson J, Champ S, Deiure A, Looyis J, et al. Effects of a provincial-wide implementation of screening for distress on healthcare professionals’ confidence and understanding of person-centered care in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016;14:1259–66.
pubmed: 27697980
doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0135
Degl’ Innocenti A, Wijk H, Kullgren A, Alexiou E. The influence of evidence-based design on staff perceptions of a supportive environment for person-centered care in forensic psychiatry. J Forensic Nurs. 2020;16:E23–30.
pubmed: 31834079
doi: 10.1097/JFN.0000000000000261
Hulin CL. A psychometric theory of evaluations of item and scale translations: fidelity across languages. J Cross Cult Psychol. 1987;18:115–42.
doi: 10.1177/0022002187018002001
Martínez T, Suárez-Álvarez J, Yanguas J, Muñiz J. Spanish validation of the person-centered Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT). Aging Ment Health. 2016;20:550–8.
pubmed: 25811968
doi: 10.1080/13607863.2015.1023768
Martínez T, Martínez-Loredo V, Cuesta M, Muñiz J. Assessment of person-centered care in gerontology services: a new tool for healthcare professionals. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2020;20:62–70.
pubmed: 32021620
doi: 10.1016/j.ijchp.2019.07.003
Rokstad AM, Engedal K, Edvardsson D, Selbaek G. Psychometric evaluation of the Norwegian version of the person-centred Care Assessment Tool. Int J Nurs Pract. 2012;18:99–105.
pubmed: 22257337
doi: 10.1111/j.1440-172X.2011.01998.x
Sjögren K, Lindkvist M, Sandman PO, Zingmark K, Edvardsson D. Psychometric evaluation of the Swedish version of the person-centered Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT). Int Psychogeriatr. 2012;24:406–15.
pubmed: 22040626
doi: 10.1017/S104161021100202X
Zhong XB, Lou VW. Person-centered care in Chinese residential care facilities: a preliminary measure. Aging Ment Health. 2013;17:952–8.
pubmed: 23650898
doi: 10.1080/13607863.2013.790925
Tak YR, Woo HY, You SY, Kim JH. Validity and reliability of the person-centered Care Assessment Tool in long-term care facilities in Korea. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2015;45:412–9.
pubmed: 26159142
doi: 10.4040/jkan.2015.45.3.412
Brugnolli A, Debiasi M, Zenere A, Zanolin ME, Baggia M. The person-centered Care Assessment Tool in nursing homes: psychometric evaluation of the Italian version. J Nurs Meas. 2020;28:555–63.
pubmed: 32737194
doi: 10.1891/JNM-D-18-00090
Bru-Luna LM, Martí-Vilar M, Merino-Soto C, Livia J. Reliability generalization study of the person-centered Care Assessment Tool. Front Psychol. 2021;12:712582.
pubmed: 34646202
pmcid: 8502849
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.712582
Edvardsson D, Innes A. Measuring person-centered care: a critical comparative review of published tools. Gerontologist. 2010;50:834–46.
pubmed: 20566834
doi: 10.1093/geront/gnq047
Hawkins M, Elsworth GR, Nolte S, Osborne RH. Validity arguments for patient-reported outcomes: justifying the intended interpretation and use of data. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2021;5:64.
pubmed: 34328558
pmcid: 8324704
doi: 10.1186/s41687-021-00332-y
Sireci SG. On the validity of useless tests. Assess Educ Princ Policy Pract. 2016;23:226–35.
Hawkins M, Elsworth GR, Osborne RH. Questionnaire validation practice: a protocol for a systematic descriptive literature review of health literacy assessments. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e030753.
pubmed: 31594888
pmcid: 6797381
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030753
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association. National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association; 2014.
Padilla JL, Benítez I. Validity evidence based on response processes. Psicothema. 2014;26:136–44.
pubmed: 24444741
Hawkins M, Elsworth GR, Hoban E, Osborne RH. Questionnaire validation practice within a theoretical framework: a systematic descriptive literature review of health literacy assessments. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e035974.
pubmed: 32487577
pmcid: 7265003
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035974
Le C, Ma K, Tang P, Edvardsson D, Behm L, Zhang J, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the person-centred Care Assessment Tool. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e031580.
pubmed: 32665340
pmcid: 7359066
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031580
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. 2021;88:105906.
pubmed: 33789826
doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906
Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008;22:338–42.
pubmed: 17884971
doi: 10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF
Grégoire G, Derderian F, Le Lorier J. Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a tower of Babel bias? J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:159–63.
pubmed: 7853041
doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00098-B
Arias MM. Aspectos metodológicos Del metaanálisis (1). Pediatr Aten Primaria. 2018;20:297–302.
Covidence. Covidence systematic review software. Veritas Health Innovation, Australia. 2014. https://www.covidence.org/ . Accessed 28 Feb 2022.
Selan D, Jakobsson U, Condelius A. The Swedish P-CAT: modification and exploration of psychometric properties of two different versions. Scand J Caring Sci. 2017;31:527–35.
pubmed: 27501454
doi: 10.1111/scs.12366
Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:3186–91.
pubmed: 11124735
doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
Guillemin F. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of health status measures. Scand J Rheumatol. 1995;24:61–3.
pubmed: 7747144
doi: 10.3109/03009749509099285
Hambleton R, Merenda P, Spielberger C. Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2005.
Muñiz J, Elosua P, Hambleton RK. International test commission guidelines for test translation and adaptation: second edition. Psicothema. 2013;25:151–7.
pubmed: 23628527
Rosengren K, Brannefors P, Carlstrom E. Adoption of the concept of person-centred care into discourse in Europe: a systematic literature review. J Health Organ Manag. 2021;35:265–80.
pubmed: 34523306
doi: 10.1108/JHOM-01-2021-0008
Alharbi T, Olsson LE, Ekman I, Carlström E. The impact of organizational culture on the outcome of hospital care: after the implementation of person-centred care. Scand J Public Health. 2014;42:104–10.
doi: 10.1177/1403494813500593
Bensbih S, Souadka A, Diez AG, Bouksour O. Patient centered care: focus on low and middle income countries and proposition of new conceptual model. J Med Surg Res. 2020;7:755–63.
Stranz A, Sörensdotter R. Interpretations of person-centered dementia care: same rhetoric, different practices? A comparative study of nursing homes in England and Sweden. J Aging Stud. 2016;38:70–80.
pubmed: 27531454
doi: 10.1016/j.jaging.2016.05.001
Zhou LM, Xu RH, Xu YH, Chang JH, Wang D. Inpatients’ perception of patient-centered care in Guangdong province, China: a cross-sectional study. Inquiry. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/00469580211059482 .
doi: 10.1177/00469580211059482
pubmed: 34935527
pmcid: 8721885
Marsh HW, Morin AJ, Parker PD, Kaur G. Exploratory structural equation modeling: an integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2014;10:85–110.
pubmed: 24313568
doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700
Asparouhov T, Muthén B. Exploratory structural equation modeling. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2009;16:397–438.
doi: 10.1080/10705510903008204
Cabedo-Peris J, Martí-Vilar M, Merino-Soto C, Ortiz-Morán M. Basic empathy scale: a systematic review and reliability generalization meta-analysis. Healthc (Basel). 2022;10:29–62.
Flora DB. Your coefficient alpha is probably wrong, but which coefficient omega is right? A tutorial on using R to obtain better reliability estimates. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci. 2020;3:484–501.
doi: 10.1177/2515245920951747
McNeish D. Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychol Methods. 2018;23:412–33.
pubmed: 28557467
doi: 10.1037/met0000144
Hayes AF, Coutts JJ. Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But… Commun Methods Meas. 2020;14:1–24.
doi: 10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334.
doi: 10.1007/BF02310555
McDonald R. Test theory: a unified approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1999.
Polit DF. Getting serious about test-retest reliability: a critique of retest research and some recommendations. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:1713–20.
pubmed: 24504622
doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0632-9
Ceylan D, Çizel B, Karakaş H. Testing destination image scale invariance for intergroup comparison. Tour Anal. 2020;25:239–51.
doi: 10.3727/108354220X15758301241756
Rönkkö M, Cho E. An updated guideline for assessing discriminant validity. Organ Res Methods. 2022;25:6–14.
doi: 10.1177/1094428120968614
Hubley A, Zumbo B. Response processes in the context of validity: setting the stage. In: Zumbo B, Hubley A, editors. Understanding and investigating response processes in validation research. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2017. pp. 1–12.
Messick S. Validity of performance assessments. In: Philips G, editor. Technical issues in large-scale performance assessment. Washington, DC: Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics; 1996. pp. 1–18.
Moss PA. The role of consequences in validity theory. Educ Meas Issues Pract. 1998;17:6–12.
doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1998.tb00826.x
Cronbach L. Five perspectives on validity argument. In: Wainer H, editor. Test validity. Hillsdale, MI: Erlbaum; 1988. pp. 3–17.
Birkle C, Pendlebury DA, Schnell J, Adams J. Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quant Sci Stud. 2020;1:363–76.
doi: 10.1162/qss_a_00018
Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Kleijnen J, Franco OH. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Syst Rev. 2017;6:245.
pubmed: 29208034
pmcid: 5718002
doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y
Web of Science Group. Editorial selection process. Clarivate. 2024. https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/%20editorial-selection-process/ . Accessed 12 Sept 2022.