Quality of physical therapy from a patient’s perspective; factor analysis on web-based survey data revealed three dimensions on patient experiences with physical therapy

BMC Health Services Research

Jozé Braspenning¹  Maria WG Nijhuis-van der Sanden¹  Hilly Calsbeek¹  Marijn Scholte¹ 

[1]Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud university medical centre, Geert Grooteplein 21, 6525 EZ Nijmegen, The Netherlands

关键词: Physical therapy;    Quality of care;    Factor analysis;    Patient experiences;   

Others  :  1130721
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6963-14-266

 received in 2014-01-08, accepted in 2014-06-12,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Assessing quality of care from the patient’s perspective has changed from patient satisfaction to the more general term patient experience, as satisfaction measures turned out to be less discriminative due to high scores. Literature describes four to ten dimensions of patient experience, tailored to specific conditions or types of care. Given the administrative burden on patients, less dimensions and items could increase feasibility. Ten dimensions of patient experiences with physical therapy (PT) were proposed in the Netherlands in a consensus-based process with patients, physical therapists, health insurers, and policy makers. The aim of this paper is to detect the number of dimensions from data of a field study using factor analysis at item level.

Methods

A web-based survey yielded data of 2,221 patients from 52 PT practices on 41 items. Principal component factor analysis at item level was used to assess the proposed distinction between the ten dimensions.

Results

Factor analysis revealed two dimensions: ‘personal interaction’ and ‘practice organisation’. The dimension ‘patient reported outcome’ was artificially established. The three dimensions ‘personal interaction’ (14 items) (median_{practice level} = 91.1; IQR = 2.4), ‘practice organisation’ (9 items) (median_{practice level} = 88.9; IQR = 6.0) and ‘outcome’ (3 items) (median_{practice level} = 80.6; IQR = 19.5) reduced the number of dimensions from ten to three and the number of items by more than a third.

Conclusions

Factor analysis revealed three dimensions and achieved an item reduction of more than a third. It is a relevant step in the development process of a quality measurement tool to reduce respondent burden, increase clarity, and promote feasibility.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Scholte et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bury M: Health and Illness in a changing society. London: Routledge; 1997.
• [2]Williams B, Coyle J, Healy D: The meaning of patient satisfaction: an explanation of high reported levels. Soc Sci Med 1998, 47:1351-1359.
• [3]Hush JM, Cameron K, Mackey M: Therapy care: a systematic review patient satisfaction with musculoskeletal physical therapy care: a systematic review. Phys Ther 2011, 91:25-36.
• [4]Sitzia J, Wood N: Patient satisfaction: a review of issues and concepts. Soc Sci Med 1994, 45:1829-1843.
• [5]Holmström I, Röing M: The relation between patient-centeredness and patient empowerment: a discussion on concepts. Patient Educ Couns 2010, 79:167-172.
• [6]CAHPS website. https://cahps.ahrq.gov/ webcite
• [7]Neeleman-van der Steen K, van de Ven G, de Bie R, Oostendorp R, Braspenning J: Prestatie-indicatoren Fysiotherapie. Het ontwikkelen en testen van een basisset van publieke kwaliteitsindicatoren voor de fysiotherapie. (Performance indicators physical therapy. Developing and testing a set of public quality indicators for physical therapy). Nijmegen/Maastricht: IQ healthcare/CEBP; 2009.
• [8]Campbell SM, Braspenning J, Hutchinson A, Marshall M: Research methods used in developing and applying quality indicators in primary care. Qual Saf Health Care 2002, 11:358-364.
• [9]Galesic M, Bosnjak M: Effects of questionnaire length on participation and indicators of response quality in a web survey. Public Opin Q 2009, 73:349-360.
• [10]May SJ: Patient satisfaction with management of back pain part 1: what is satisfaction? review of satisfaction with medical management. Physiotherapy 2001, 87:4-20.
• [11]Mead N, Bower P: Patient-centeredness: a conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature. Soc Sci Med 2000, 51:1087-1110.
• [12]Cooper K, Smith BH, Hancock E: Patient-centeredness in physiotherapy from the perspective of the chronic low back pain patient. Physiotherapy 2008, 94:244-252.
• [13]de Boer D, Hendriks M, Damman OC, Spreeuwenberg P, Rademakers J, Delnoij DMJ, van der Meulen-Arts S: Ervaringen van verzekerden met de zorg en de zorgverzekeraars. CQ-index Zorg en Zorgverzekering, meting 2007 (Experiences of insured patients with care and insurers. The CQ-index Care and Healthcare Insurance, measurement 2007). Utrecht: NIVEL/CKZ; 2007.
• [14]Kooijman MK, Barten JA, Swinkels ICS, Veenhof C: Jaarcijfers 2010 en trendcijfers 2006–2010 fysiotherapie. (Annual results 2010 and trend figures 2006–2010 physiotherapy). Utrecht: NIVEL; 2011.
• [15]Bollen KA, Bauldry S: Three Cs in measurement models: causal indicators, composite indicators, and covariates. Psychol Methods 2011, 16:265-284.
• [16]Delnoij DMJ, Asbroek ten G, Arah OA, de Koning JS, Stam P, Poll A, Vriens B, Schmidt P, Klazinga NS: Made in the USA: the import of American Consumer Assessment of Health Plan Surveys (CAHPS_) into the Dutch social insurance system. Eur J Public Health 2006, 16:652-659.
• [17]Wensing M, Mainz J, Grol R: A standardised instrument for patient evaluations of general practice care in Europe. Eur J Gen Pract 2000, 6:82-87.
• [18]Bower P, Mead N, Roland M: What dimensions underlie patient responses to the general practice assessment survey? a factor analytic study. Fam Pract 2002, 19:489-495.
• [19]Christiaans-Dingelhoff I, Smits M, Zwaan L, Lubberding S, van der Wal G, Wagner C: To what extent are adverse events found in patient records reported by patients and healthcare professionals via complaints, claims and incident reports. BMC Health Serv Res 2011, 11:49.