↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating patient experiences in decentralised acute care using the Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire; methodological and clinical findings

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluating patient experiences in decentralised acute care using the Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire; methodological and clinical findings
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2614-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ann-Chatrin Linqvist Leonardsen, Vigdis Abrahamsen Grøndahl, Waleed Ghanima, Espen Storeheier, Anders Schönbeck, Thor-Asbjørn Løken, Nina Carine Mikkelsen Bakken, Guro Steine Letting, Réné Holst, Lars-Petter Jelsness-Jørgensen

Abstract

Decentralised acute care services have, through the establishment of municipality acute wards (MAWs), been launched in Norway. The aim is to provide treatment for patients who otherwise would need hospitalisation. Currently there is a lack of studies investigating patient experiences in such services. The aims of this study were therefore to a) translate and validate the Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire (PPE-15) in Norwegian, and b) assess patient experiences in decentralised acute care, and potential factors associated with these experiences. Patients were recruited from five municipal acute wards in southeastern Norway during the period from June 2014 to June 2015. Data on socio-demographics, length of stay and comorbidity (Charlson comorbidity index (CCI)) were collected. Patients completed the Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire (PPE-15) and the EuroQOL 5-dimension, 3-level version. Convergent validity of the PPE-15 was assessed by correlation of items in PPE-15 and the Nordic Patient Experience Questionnaire (NORPEQ). A retest of the PPE-15 was performed in a subgroup of patients approximately 3 weeks after baseline assessment. Test-retest agreement was assessed with Cohens' unweighted Kappa. A total of 479 patients responded, median age 78.0 years and 41.8% men. A total of 68 patients participated in the retest. Testing of convergent validity revealed an overall weak to moderate correlation. Kappa statistics showed from fair to good test-retest agreement. Most problems were related to continuity and transition, while fewest problems were related to respect for patient preferences. A higher Charlson comorbidity score was the only variable that was negatively associated with patient experience. Patients reported problems in several items of the PPE-15 after discharge from decentralised acute wards. The findings from the current study may be helpful for planning ways to improve quality of care, e.g., by providing feedback to healthcare personnel or by using patient experience as a quality indicator.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 16%
Student > Master 13 16%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 17 21%
Unknown 20 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 22 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 17%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 22 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 September 2017.
All research outputs
#7,377,782
of 11,845,495 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,695
of 3,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,007
of 271,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#59
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,845,495 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,862 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 271,025 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.