RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Through the patients’ eyes - Psychometric evaluation of the 64-item version of the Experienced Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire (EPAT-64)
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.03.28.24304955
DO 10.1101/2024.03.28.24304955
A1 Christalle, Eva
A1 Zeh, Stefan
A1 Führes, Hannah
A1 Schellhorn, Alica
A1 Hahlweg, Pola
A1 Zill, Jördis
A1 Härter, Martin
A1 Bokemeyer, Carsten
A1 Gallinat, Jürgen
A1 Gebhardt, Christoffer
A1 Magnussen, Christina
A1 Müller, Volkmar
A1 Schmalstieg-Bahr, Katharina
A1 Strahl, André
A1 Kriston, Levente
A1 Scholl, Isabelle
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/29/2024.03.28.24304955.abstract
AB Background Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are valuable tools for evaluating patient-centeredness (PC) from the patients’ perspective. Despite their utility, a comprehensive PREM addressing PC has been lacking. To bridge this gap, we developed the preliminary version of the Experienced Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire (EPAT), a disease-generic tool based on the integrative model of PC comprising 16 dimensions. It demonstrated content validity. The aim of this study was to test its psychometric properties and to develop a final 64-items version (EPAT-64).Methods In this cross-sectional study, we included adult patients treated for cardiovascular diseases, cancer, musculoskeletal diseases, and mental disorders in inpatient or outpatient settings in Germany. For each dimension of PC, we selected four items based on item characteristics such as item difficulty and corrected item-total correlation. We tested structural validity using confirmatory factor analysis, examined reliability by McDondald’s Omega, and tested construct validity by examining correlations with general health status and satisfaction with care.Results Analysis of data from 2.024 patients showed excellent acceptance and acceptable item-total-correlations for all EPAT-64 items, with few items demonstrating ceiling effects. The confirmatory factor analysis indicated the best fit of a bifactor model, where each item loaded on both a general factor and a dimension-specific factor. Omega showed high reliability for the general factor while varying for specific dimensions. Construct validity was confirmed by absence of strong correlations with general health status and a strong correlation of the general factor with satisfaction with care.Conclusions The EPAT-64 demonstrated commendable psychometric properties. This tool allows comprehensive assessment of PC, offering flexibility to users who can measure each dimension with a 4-item module or choose modules based on their needs. The EPAT-64 serves multiple purposes, including quality improvement initiatives and evaluation of interventions aiming to enhance PC. Its versatility empowers users in diverse healthcare settings.What is already known on this topic Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) can be used to assess patient-centeredness (PC) from the patients’ perspective. The “Experienced Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire” (EPAT) is the first PREM to comprehensively assess 16 dimensions of PC.What this study adds In this study, we tested the psychometric properties of all items developed for the EPAT and developed the 64-item version of the EPAT (EPAT-64), which demonstrated good psychometric properties.How this study might affect research, practice or policy The EPAT-64 can be used in research and routine care, e.g. to evaluate interventions, provide feedback to healthcare professionals, support quality improvement, set benchmarks, and, consequently improve PC.Competing Interest StatementPH declares to have no financial conflicts of interest. PH is a board member of the International Shared Decision Making Society, a charitable scientific society. PH received research funding from German Research Foundation, University of Hamburg and Robert-Bosch-Foundation. IS received honoraria for presentations and speeches on patient-centered care from the following commercial entities: onkowissen.de GmbH, ClinSol GmbH & Co. KG. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests.Clinical Protocols https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/8/10/e025896.full.pdf Funding StatementThis study was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung - BMBF) with the grant number 01GY1614.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study had been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Association Hamburg (study ID: PV5724).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors. https://www.uke.de/epat