Psychometric Evaluation of the Patient Experience Colonoscopy Scale

IF 2.1 4区医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice Pub Date : 2025-07-23 DOI:10.1111/jep.70220

Rosvall Annica, Axelsson Malin, Annersten Gershater Magdalena, Toth Ervin, Karl Bang Christensen, Kumlien Christine

{"title":"Psychometric Evaluation of the Patient Experience Colonoscopy Scale","authors":"Rosvall Annica, Axelsson Malin, Annersten Gershater Magdalena, Toth Ervin, Karl Bang Christensen, Kumlien Christine","doi":"10.1111/jep.70220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Rationale, Aims and Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>Colonoscopy, though common, can be uncomfortable, necessitating routine assessment of patient experience per European guidelines. Positive patient experiences are crucial as they influence willingness for repeat procedures. Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) effectively capture patient perspectives through surveys, empowering patients to influence healthcare quality. These surveys identify areas for improvement and inform research, enhancing healthcare and its quality. The Patient Experience Colonoscopy Scale (PECS) is a colonoscopy-specific PREM that measures adult patient experience after an elective colonoscopy. It consists of items derived from the patient's perspective and has been found to be content valid. The PECS is multidimensional and divided into five constructs: health motivation, discomfort, information, a caring relationship, and understanding. The current study aims to evaluate the measurement properties of the new PREM, called the PECS regarding reliability and construct validity.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>The sample comprised 331 adult patients who had undergone an elective colonoscopy at a University Hospital in Sweden. The PECS was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients, confirmatory factor analysis, and multi- and unidimensional Rasch analyses.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The test−retest reliability was acceptable, with an average intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.72. Construct validity was tested with three different techniques. The confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the theoretical bifactor model containing the five constructs was supported. The multi- and unidimensional Rasch analyses showed that approximately 60% of the items had acceptable values. Some violation of local independence and some evidence of differential item functioning with respect to age and gender were identified, but they all made subject matter sense. The PECS is well-targeted to patients with less positive experiences. The overall evaluation of the construct validity showed the PECS has acceptable measurement properties.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The PECS is a reliable and valid 30-item colonoscopy-specific PREM that can play an important role in gathering data for research and quality improvement initiatives that seek to incorporate patient perspectives on colonoscopy experiences. Some potential areas for improvement were found, but the PECS is ready to be utilised in clinical practice for the purpose of collecting patient experiences.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70220","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70220","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale, Aims and Objectives

Colonoscopy, though common, can be uncomfortable, necessitating routine assessment of patient experience per European guidelines. Positive patient experiences are crucial as they influence willingness for repeat procedures. Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) effectively capture patient perspectives through surveys, empowering patients to influence healthcare quality. These surveys identify areas for improvement and inform research, enhancing healthcare and its quality. The Patient Experience Colonoscopy Scale (PECS) is a colonoscopy-specific PREM that measures adult patient experience after an elective colonoscopy. It consists of items derived from the patient's perspective and has been found to be content valid. The PECS is multidimensional and divided into five constructs: health motivation, discomfort, information, a caring relationship, and understanding. The current study aims to evaluate the measurement properties of the new PREM, called the PECS regarding reliability and construct validity.

Method

The sample comprised 331 adult patients who had undergone an elective colonoscopy at a University Hospital in Sweden. The PECS was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients, confirmatory factor analysis, and multi- and unidimensional Rasch analyses.

Results

The test−retest reliability was acceptable, with an average intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.72. Construct validity was tested with three different techniques. The confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the theoretical bifactor model containing the five constructs was supported. The multi- and unidimensional Rasch analyses showed that approximately 60% of the items had acceptable values. Some violation of local independence and some evidence of differential item functioning with respect to age and gender were identified, but they all made subject matter sense. The PECS is well-targeted to patients with less positive experiences. The overall evaluation of the construct validity showed the PECS has acceptable measurement properties.

Conclusion

The PECS is a reliable and valid 30-item colonoscopy-specific PREM that can play an important role in gathering data for research and quality improvement initiatives that seek to incorporate patient perspectives on colonoscopy experiences. Some potential areas for improvement were found, but the PECS is ready to be utilised in clinical practice for the purpose of collecting patient experiences.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

患者体验结肠镜检查量表的心理测量评估

原理、目的和目的结肠镜检查虽然很常见，但可能会让人不舒服，因此需要根据欧洲指南对患者进行常规评估。积极的患者体验是至关重要的，因为他们影响了重复手术的意愿。患者报告的体验措施（prem）通过调查有效地捕获患者的观点，使患者能够影响医疗保健质量。这些调查确定了需要改进的领域，并为研究提供信息，从而提高医疗保健及其质量。患者体验结肠镜检查量表（PECS）是一种特定于结肠镜检查的PREM，用于测量成人患者在选择性结肠镜检查后的体验。它包括从病人的角度得出的项目，并已被发现是内容有效的。PECS是多维的，分为五个构式：健康动机、不适、信息、关怀关系和理解。本研究的目的是评估新的预计量量表PECS在信度和结构效度方面的测量特性。方法选取331例在瑞典某大学医院接受择期结肠镜检查的成年患者作为样本。PECS采用类内相关系数、验证性因子分析、多维和一维Rasch分析进行评估。结果重测信度可接受，平均类内相关系数为0.72。构念效度采用三种不同的技术进行检验。验证性因子分析显示，包含五个构式的理论双因子模型得到支持。多维和一维拉希分析表明，大约60%的项目有可接受的值。我们发现了一些对地方独立性的侵犯，以及一些与年龄和性别有关的不同项目功能的证据，但它们都符合主题。PECS很好地针对那些经历不太积极的患者。整体的构念效度评估显示PECS具有可接受的测量性质。结论PECS是一种可靠有效的30项结肠镜特异性PREM，可以在收集研究数据和质量改进举措方面发挥重要作用，旨在纳入患者对结肠镜检查经验的看法。虽然发现了一些有待改进的地方，但PECS已准备好在临床实践中用于收集患者经验。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice 医学-卫生保健

CiteScore

4.80

自引率

4.20%

发文量

143

审稿时长

3-8 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.