gms | German Medical Science

22. Jahrestagung des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin e. V.

Deutsches Netzwerk Evidenzbasierte Medizin e. V.

24. - 26.02.2021, digital

Assessment of patient-centeredness through patient-reported experience measures (ASPIRED)

Meeting Abstract

  • Eva Christalle - Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Institut und Poliklinik für Medizinische Psychologie, Hamburg, Deutschland
  • Pola Hahlweg - Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Institut und Poliklinik für Medizinische Psychologie, Hamburg, Deutschland
  • Isabelle Scholl - Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Institut und Poliklinik für Medizinische Psychologie, Hamburg, Deutschland
  • Stefan Zeh - Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Institut und Poliklinik für Medizinische Psychologie, Hamburg, Deutschland
  • Jördis Zill - Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Institut und Poliklinik für Medizinische Psychologie, Hamburg, Deutschland

Who cares? – EbM und Transformation im Gesundheitswesen. 22. Jahrestagung des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin. sine loco [digital], 24.-26.02.2021. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2021. Doc21ebmV-5-04

doi: 10.3205/21ebm026, urn:nbn:de:0183-21ebm0262

Published: February 23, 2021

© 2021 Christalle et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. See license information at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.


Outline

Text

Background/research question: Patient-centeredness (PC) became increasingly important in health care policy and research. To overcome inconsistencies in the definition, an integrative model of PC was developed. However, little is known how patients value the different dimensions of PC. Furthermore, there is a lack of psychometrically sound measures to assess PC in German language.

This study aims 1) To assess the relevance of different dimensions of PC from patients’ perspectives; 2) to develop and psychometrically test a core set of German patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) to assess PC; and 3) to investigate the feasibility of implementation of said item set in routine health care.

Methods: We use a prospective mixed-methods approach. In Phase 1 a Delphi study was conducted to assess relevance and implementation of dimensions of PC from patients’ perspective. In Phase 2 a preliminary item core set was developed based on focus groups, key informant interviews and a literature review. Items were selected through a content validity rating and comprehensibility was tested in cognitive interviews. The resulting item core set is currently undergoing psychometric evaluation in a large patient sample (n=2,000). In Phase 3, the feasibility of implementation of the developed measure will be assessed and discussed in an expert workshop.

Results: Phase 1: 226 patients participated in the 1st and 214 in the 2nd round of the Delphi study. In both rounds, all dimensions of PC were rated highly relevant, but currently insufficiently implemented.

Phase 2: A total of 152 items were derived from data gathered in 6 focus groups with n=40 patients, n=10 key informant interviews, and a review of 36 existing measures. The content validity rating with n=32 stakeholders led to the deletion of 27 items and addition of 4 items. Cognitive interviews with n=34 patients showed good comprehensibility and led to a revision of the response scale. Preliminary results of the psychometric testing will be presented.

Phase 3 will start mid-2021.

Conclusion: The Delphi study extends the integrative model of PC with the patients’ perspective and can help to set priorities in fostering PC. The developed item set showed high content validity and is based on extensive data of the target users. The final core set of PREMs will enable a comprehensive assessment of PC in German. It can be used as a performance, benchmarking or quality improvement measure. The last phase will generate insights into how to best implement it into routine practice.

Competing interests: none