↓ Skip to main content

The Outcomes and Experiences Questionnaire: development and validation

Overview of attention for article published in Patient related outcome measures, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
The Outcomes and Experiences Questionnaire: development and validation
Published in
Patient related outcome measures, July 2015
DOI 10.2147/prom.s82784
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth Gibbons, Crispin Jenkinson, Paul Hewitson, Ray Fitzpatrick, David Morley

Abstract

This report presents evidence regarding the development and validation of a new questionnaire, the Outcomes and Experiences Questionnaire (OEQ). The rationale for the questionnaire is to bring together into one short instrument questions about two distinct domains - patients' reports of the outcomes of their care and how they experience care. The OEQ was developed from literature reviews, iterative drafting and discussion within the research group and cognitive testing with a sample of patients who had a hospital experience. Two validation studies were carried out with an eleven item OEQ. The goals of the studies were to examine response rates and to test specific hypotheses of how OEQ should relate to other variables normally collected in the two studies. In the first study, the OEQ was added to the follow-up questionnaires for patients (n=490) receiving surgery for hip or knee replacement or varicose vein procedures participating in the national Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) program permitting the analysis of the OEQ against change scores for the measures obtained before and after surgery. In the second study the OEQ was included in a sample of patients (n=586) who had been selected to receive the National Health Service (NHS) inpatient survey from three contrasting hospital trusts. Results from study one provided consistent and substantial evidence of construct validity of OEQ particularly for those receiving hip or knee replacement. The OEQ sub-scales behaved differently and as predicted against other PROMs variables. Again hypotheses of how the two sub-scales regarding outcomes and experiences would relate to the existing domains of patient experience in the inpatient survey were broadly confirmed in study two. The report provides encouraging evidence of the OEQ's capacity to assess distinct reports from patients about outcomes and experiences of care within a single short questionnaire.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 23%
Student > Master 6 19%
Researcher 4 13%
Other 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Other 7 23%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 48%
Psychology 4 13%
Unspecified 3 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 1 3%

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 18 July 2015.
All research outputs
#3,553,842
of 5,366,929 outputs
Outputs from Patient related outcome measures
#35
of 55 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,778
of 174,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient related outcome measures
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,366,929 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 55 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 174,323 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.