Patient experiences with general practitioners: psychometric performance of the generic PEQ-GP instrument among patients with chronic conditions

Multimorbidity and patient experience with general practice: A national cross-sectional survey in Norway

BACKGROUND

Patient experience is an important indicator of the quality of healthcare. Patients with multimorbidity often face adverse health outcomes and increased healthcare utilisation. General practitioners play a crucial role in managing these patients. The main aim of our study was to perform an in-depth assessment of differences in patient-reported experience with general practice between patients living with chronic conditions and multimorbidity, and those with no chronic conditions.

METHODS

We performed secondary analyses of a national survey of patient experience with general practice in 2021 (response rate 41.9%, n = 7,912). We described the characteristics of all survey respondents with no, one, two, and three or more self-reported chronic conditions. We assessed patient experience using four scales from the Norwegian patient experience with GP questionnaire (PEQ-GP). These scales were used as dependent variables in bivariate and multivariate analyses and for testing the measurement model, including confirmatory factor analysis and a multigroup CFA to assess measurement invariance. Sentiment and content analysis of free-text comments was also performed.

RESULTS

Patients with chronic conditions consistently reported lower scores on the GP and GP practice experience scales, compared to those without chronic conditions. This pattern persisted even after adjustment for patient background variables. The strongest associations were found for the scale of "Enablement", followed by the scales of "GP" and "Practice". The subscale "Accessibility" did not correlate statistically significantly with any number of chronic conditions. The analysis of free-text comments echoed the quantitative results. Patients with multimorbidity stressed the importance of time spent on consultations, meeting the same GP, follow-up and relationship more often than patients with no chronic conditions. Our study also confirmed measurement invariance across patients with no chronic conditions and patients with multimorbidity, indicating that the observed differences in patient experience were a result of true differences, rather than artifacts of measurement bias.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings highlight the need for the healthcare system to provide customised support for patients with chronic conditions and multimorbidity. Addressing the specific needs of patients with multimorbidity is a critical step towards enhancing patient experience and the quality of care in general practice.

Reliability and validity of the Patient Experiences Questionnaire for Interdisciplinary Treatment for Substance Dependence - Continuous Electronic Measurement (PEQ-ITSD - CEM)

BACKGROUND

Inpatient experiences with interdisciplinary treatment for substance dependence and mental health care are measured using continuous electronic measurements in Norway. Major changes in data collection from cross-sectional surveys to continuous measurements necessitated the revalidation of the instrument. The main purpose of the present study was to determine the psychometric properties of the Patient Experiences Questionnaire for Interdisciplinary Treatment for Substance Dependence - Continuous Electronic Measurement (PEQ-ITSD - CEM). We also aimed to develop a short version of this tool, since completing the original version can be burdensome for some patients.

METHODS

The study included adult inpatients (aged ≥ 16 years) who received substance-dependence treatment at 102 different sections in Norway during 2020-2022 (n = 2,850). Factor structure and item performance were assessed. A short version was developed based on the psychometric testing results that included item response theory analysis.

RESULTS

The PEQ-ITSD - CEM comprised three empirically based scales with good internal consistency, reliability and validity, which covers treatment and personnel (14 items), milieu (6 items) and outcome (5 items). The results supported a seven-item short version, with three items selected for the treatment and personnel scale, two items for the milieu scale and two items for the outcome scale.

CONCLUSIONS

The PEQ-ITSD - CEM can be recommended for future assessments of patient experiences with interdisciplinary treatment for substance dependence in Norway and in other countries with similar healthcare systems. This short-form version can be applied when respondent burden is a crucial issue.

Web-Based Public Ratings of General Practitioners in Norway: Validation Study

BACKGROUND

Understanding the complex relationships among multiple strategies for gathering users' perspectives in the evaluation of the performance of services is crucial for the interpretation of user-reported measures.

OBJECTIVE

The main objectives were to (1) evaluate the psychometric performance of an 11-item web-based questionnaire of ratings of general practitioners (GPs) currently used in Norway (Legelisten.no) and (2) assess the association between web-based and survey-based patient experience indicators.

METHODS

We included all published ratings on GPs and practices on Legelisten.no in the period of May 5, 2012, to December 15, 2021 (N=76,521). The questionnaire consists of 1 mandatory item and 10 voluntary items with 5 response categories (1 to 5 stars), alongside an open-ended review question and background variables. Questionnaire dimensionality and internal consistency were assessed with Cronbach α, exploratory factor, and item response theory analyses, and a priori hypotheses were developed for assessing construct validity (chi-square analysis). We calculated Spearman correlations between web-based ratings and reference patient experience indicators based on survey data using the patient experiences with the GP questionnaire (n=5623 respondents for a random sample of 50 GPs).

RESULTS

Web-based raters were predominantly women (n=32,074, 64.0%), in the age range of 20-50 years (n=35,113, 74.6%), and reporting 5 or fewer consultations with the GP each year (n=28,798, 64.5%). Ratings were missing for 18.9% (n=14,500) to 27.4% (n=20,960) of nonmandatory items. A total of 4 of 11 rating items showed a U-shaped distribution, with >60% reporting 5 stars. Factor analysis and internal consistency testing identified 2 rating scales: "GP" (5 items; α=.98) and "practice" (6 items; α=.85). Some associations were not consistent with a priori hypotheses and allowed only partial confirmation of the construct validity of ratings. Item response theory analysis results were adequate for the "practice" scale but not for the "GP" scale, with items with inflated discrimination (>5) distributed over a narrow interval of the scale. The correlations between the web-based ratings GP scale and GP reference indicators ranged from 0.34 (P=.021) to 0.44 (P=.002), while the correlation between the web-based ratings practice scale and reference indicators ranged from 0.17 (not significant) to 0.49 (P<.001). The strongest correlations between web-based and survey scores were found for items measuring practice-related experiences: phone availability (ρ=0.51), waiting time in the office (ρ=0.62), other staff (ρ=0.54-0.58; P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The practice scale of the web-based ratings has adequate psychometric performance, while the GP suffers from important limitations. The associations with survey-based patient experience indicators were accordingly mostly weak to modest. Our study underlines the importance of interpreting web-based ratings with caution and the need to further develop rating sites.