Russian-language Translation and Cultural Adaptation of the Norwegian 'Patient Experience Questionnaire'

Overview

Journal PEC Innov

Specialty Health Services

Date 2023 Jun 29

PMID 37384153

Authors

Mikhail Ionov

Elena Dubinina

Ilya Tregubenko

Nadezhda Zvartau

Alexandra Konradi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To translate, adapt culturally, and validate PREM for outpatients.

Methods: A core set of questions from the Patient Experience Questionnaire (PEQ, in Norwegian, available in English) was translated to Russian (forward-backward translation). Acceptability, construct validity, and reliability were assessed. Patients aged ≥18 y.o. were invited to complete the questionnaire via QR-code within 24 h after a medical encounter.

Results: A questionnaire with adequate conceptual and linguistic equivalence was obtained. For four questions, a rating scale was replaced by Likert-type. A total of 308 responses were received (median age 55 y.o., 52% females). The correlation matrix was factorable. Four factors were extracted using varimax rotation: 1) outcome of this specific visit; 2) communication experiences; 3) communication competency; 4) emotions after this visit. These explained 65.4% of the total variance. Three items were excluded. The model was confirmed to be adequate. The Cronbach alpha was >0.9. Item-total correlation confirmed discriminative validity.

Conclusion: These preliminary results show that the Russian version of PEQ, adapted to national features, shows good psychometric properties. External validation is needed for the broad implementation of this PREM.

Innovation: This research is first attempt to use PREM in the Russian Federation. The use of quick response codes is feasible and eases survey conduction. The more PREMs are used the higher the quality of healthcare.

References

Li M, Harris I, Lu Z . Differences in proxy-reported and patient-reported outcomes: assessing health and functional status among medicare beneficiaries. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015; 15:62. PMC: 4534114. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-015-0053-7. View

Anhang Price R, Elliott M, Zaslavsky A, Hays R, Lehrman W, Rybowski L . Examining the role of patient experience surveys in measuring health care quality. Med Care Res Rev. 2014; 71(5):522-54. PMC: 4349195. DOI: 10.1177/1077558714541480. View

Derriennic J, Nabbe P, Barais M, Le Goff D, Pourtau T, Penpennic B . A systematic literature review of patient self-assessment instruments concerning quality of primary care in multiprofessional clinics. Fam Pract. 2022; 39(5):951-963. PMC: 9508876. DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmac007. View

Gignac G . Partial confirmatory factor analysis: described and illustrated on the NEO-PI-R. J Pers Assess. 2008; 91(1):40-7. DOI: 10.1080/00223890802484126. View

Lin Y, Hong Y, Henson B, Stevenson R, Hong S, Lyu T . Assessing Patient Experience and Healthcare Quality of Dental Care Using Patient Online Reviews in the United States: Mixed Methods Study. J Med Internet Res. 2020; 22(7):e18652. PMC: 7380989. DOI: 10.2196/18652. View

Gjersing L, Caplehorn J, Clausen T . Cross-cultural adaptation of research instruments: language, setting, time and statistical considerations. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010; 10:13. PMC: 2831007. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-13. View

Pedersen A, Mikkelsen E, Cronin-Fenton D, Kristensen N, Pham T, Pedersen L . Missing data and multiple imputation in clinical epidemiological research. Clin Epidemiol. 2017; 9:157-166. PMC: 5358992. DOI: 10.2147/CLEP.S129785. View

Beattie M, Murphy D, Atherton I, Lauder W . Instruments to measure patient experience of healthcare quality in hospitals: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2015; 4:97. PMC: 4511995. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-015-0089-0. View

Cattell R . The Scree Test For The Number Of Factors. Multivariate Behav Res. 2016; 1(2):245-76. DOI: 10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10. View

10.

Holmboe O, Iversen H, Danielsen K, Bjertnaes O . The Norwegian patient experiences with GP questionnaire (PEQ-GP): reliability and construct validity following a national survey. BMJ Open. 2017; 7(9):e016644. PMC: 5640105. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016644. View

11.

Lee J, Huber Jr J . Evaluation of Multiple Imputation with Large Proportions of Missing Data: How Much Is Too Much?. Iran J Public Health. 2021; 50(7):1372-1380. PMC: 8426774. DOI: 10.18502/ijph.v50i7.6626. View

12.

Teisberg E, Wallace S, OHara S . Defining and Implementing Value-Based Health Care: A Strategic Framework. Acad Med. 2019; 95(5):682-685. PMC: 7185050. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003122. View

13.

Elliott M, Lehrman W, Goldstein E, Giordano L, Beckett M, W Cohea C . Hospital survey shows improvements in patient experience. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010; 29(11):2061-7. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0876. View

14.

Cornelis C, den Hartog S, Bastemeijer C, Roozenbeek B, Nederkoorn P, Van den Berg-Vos R . Patient-Reported Experience Measures in Stroke Care: A Systematic Review. Stroke. 2021; 52(7):2432-2435. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.034028. View

15.

Boiko O, Campbell J, Elmore N, Davey A, Roland M, Burt J . The role of patient experience surveys in quality assurance and improvement: a focus group study in English general practice. Health Expect. 2014; 18(6):1982-94. PMC: 5810660. DOI: 10.1111/hex.12298. View

16.

Jakobsen J, Gluud C, Wetterslev J, Winkel P . When and how should multiple imputation be used for handling missing data in randomised clinical trials - a practical guide with flowcharts. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017; 17(1):162. PMC: 5717805. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-017-0442-1. View

17.

Steine S, Finset A, Laerum E . A new, brief questionnaire (PEQ) developed in primary health care for measuring patients' experience of interaction, emotion and consultation outcome. Fam Pract. 2001; 18(4):410-8. DOI: 10.1093/fampra/18.4.410. View

18.

Sixma H, Kerssens J, van Campen C, Peters L . Quality of care from the patients' perspective: from theoretical concept to a new measuring instrument. Health Expect. 2001; 1(2):82-95. PMC: 5139902. DOI: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.1998.00004.x. View

19.

Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A . Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health. 2005; 8(2):94-104. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x. View

20.

Bull C, Byrnes J, Hettiarachchi R, Downes M . A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient-reported experience measures. Health Serv Res. 2019; 54(5):1023-1035. PMC: 6736915. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.13187. View