Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDavey, AF
dc.contributor.authorRoberts, Martin
dc.contributor.authorMounce, L
dc.contributor.authorMaramba, Inocencio Daniel
dc.contributor.authorCampbell, JL
dc.date.accessioned2017-02-27T14:19:30Z
dc.date.available2017-02-27T14:19:30Z
dc.date.issued2016-12
dc.identifier.issn2193-1801
dc.identifier.issn2193-1801
dc.identifier.other1755
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/8566
dc.description.abstract

PURPOSE: The validity and reliability of various items on the GP Patient Survey (GPPS) survey have been reported, however stability of patient responses over time has not been tested. The purpose of this study was to determine the test-retest reliability of the core items from the GPPS. METHODS: Patients who had recently consulted participating GPs in five general practices across the South West England were sent a postal questionnaire comprising of 54 items concerning their experience of their consultation and the care they received from the GP practice. Patients returning the questionnaire within 3 weeks of mail-out were sent a second identical (retest) questionnaire. Stability of responses was assessed by raw agreement rates and Cohen's kappa (for categorical response items) and intraclass correlation coefficients and means (for ordinal response items). RESULTS: 348 of 597 Patients returned a retest questionnaire (58.3 % response rate). In comparison to the test phase, patients responding to the retest phase were older and more likely to have white British ethnicity. Raw agreement rates for the 33 categorical items ranged from 66 to 100 % (mean 88 %) while the kappa coefficients ranged from 0.00 to 1.00 (mean 0.53). Intraclass correlation coefficients for the 21 ordinal items averaged 0.67 (range 0.44-0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Formal testing of items from the national GP patient survey examining patient experience in primary care highlighted their acceptable temporal stability several weeks following a GP consultation.

dc.format.extent1755-
dc.format.mediumElectronic-eCollection
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLC
dc.subjectClinical Research
dc.titleTest–retest stability of patient experience items derived from the national GP patient survey
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeJournal Article
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000391805500017&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=11bb513d99f797142bcfeffcc58ea008
plymouth.issue1
plymouth.volume5
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalSpringerPlus
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s40064-016-3377-9
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health/Peninsula Medical School
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA23 Education
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Institute of Health and Community
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role/Academics
dc.publisher.placeSwitzerland
dcterms.dateAccepted2016-09-23
dc.identifier.eissn2193-1801
dc.rights.embargoperiodNo embargo
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1186/s40064-016-3377-9
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2016-12
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
plymouth.oa-locationhttps://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40064-016-3377-9


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV