| Title |
Measurement of Perceived and Technical Quality of Care for Depression in Racially and Ethnically Diverse Groups
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10903-015-0286-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
H. Stephen Leff, Clifton Chow, Dow A. Wieman, Laysha Ostrow, Dharma E. Cortés, Treniece Harris |
| Abstract |
Measurement of patient satisfaction is now considered essential for providing patient centered care and is an important tool for addressing health care disparities. However, little is known about how ethnically and racially diverse (ERD) groups differ in how they perceive quality, and widely used instruments for measuring perceived quality give little attention to cultural elements of care. This study examined the relationship between the culturally determined beliefs and expectations of four ERD groups (African Americans, Latinos, Portuguese-speakers, and Haitians, total N = 160) and the technical quality of treatment for depression provided in four "culturally-specific" primary care clinics. Using data from the Experiences of Care and Health Outcomes survey, chart reviews and focus groups, the study addressed a set of questions related to the psychometric properties of perceived care measures and the technical quality of care. The groups differed in preferred cultural elements except all preferred inclusion of religion. They did not differ in overall perceived quality. Technical quality was higher for Portuguese and Haitians than for African Americans and Latinos. Implications of group differences for measuring quality are discussed. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 66 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 18 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 18% |
| Psychology | 12 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 22 | 32% |
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 08 April 2017.
All research outputs
#19,400,321
of 23,867,274 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
#1,059
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#292,609
of 400,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
#26
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,867,274 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 400,589 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.