↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The Universal Patient Centredness Questionnaire: scaling approaches to reduce positive skew

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
The Universal Patient Centredness Questionnaire: scaling approaches to reduce positive skew
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, November 2016
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s116424
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oyvind Bjertnaes, Hilde Hestad Iversen, Andrew M Garratt

Abstract

Surveys of patients' experiences typically show results that are indicative of positive experiences. Unbalanced response scales have reduced positive skew for responses to items within the Universal Patient Centeredness Questionnaire (UPC-Q). The objective of this study was to compare the unbalanced response scale with another unbalanced approach to scaling to assess whether the positive skew might be further reduced. The UPC-Q was included in a patient experience survey conducted at the ward level at six hospitals in Norway in 2015. The postal survey included two reminders to nonrespondents. For patients in the first month of inclusion, UPC-Q items had standard scaling: poor, fairly good, good, very good, and excellent. For patients in the second month, the scaling was more positive: poor, good, very good, exceptionally good, and excellent. The effect of scaling on UPC-Q scores was tested with independent samples t-tests and multilevel linear regression analysis, the latter controlling for the hierarchical structure of data and known predictors of patient-reported experiences. The response rate was 54.6% (n=4,970). Significantly lower scores were found for all items of the more positively worded scale: UPC-Q total score difference was 7.9 (P<0.001), on a scale from 0 to 100 where 100 is the best possible score. Differences between the four items of the UPC-Q ranged from 7.1 (P<0.001) to 10.4 (P<0.001). Multivariate multilevel regression analysis confirmed the difference between the response groups, after controlling for other background variables; UPC-Q total score difference estimate was 8.3 (P<0.001). The more positively worded scaling significantly lowered the mean scores, potentially increasing the sensitivity of the UPC-Q to identify differences over time and between providers. However, none of the groups exhibited large positive skew and ceiling effects, implying that such effects might not be a big measurement problem for either scaling format. We recommend using the standard scaling in surveys producing external indicators for inter-provider comparisons. The more positively worded scaling has greater relevance for local measurement work where the results of patient experience surveys have shown large positive skew, and intra-provider comparison is the primary goal.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 39%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 11%
Researcher 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 22%
Psychology 2 11%
Computer Science 1 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 1 6%
Attention Score in Context

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 10 November 2016.
All research outputs
#17,450,897
of 25,604,262 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,067
of 1,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,886
of 318,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#30
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,604,262 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,768 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 318,392 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.