↓ Skip to main content

Establishing the validity of English GP Patient Survey items evaluating out-of-hours care

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Quality & Safety, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Establishing the validity of English GP Patient Survey items evaluating out-of-hours care
Published in
BMJ Quality & Safety, October 2015
DOI 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004215
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luke T A Mounce, Heather E Barry, Raffaele Calitri, William E Henley, John Campbell, Martin Roland, Suzanne Richards

Abstract

A 2014 national audit used the English General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS) to compare service users' experience of out-of-hours general practitioner (GP) services, yet there is no published evidence on the validity of these GPPS items. Establish the construct and concurrent validity of GPPS items evaluating service users' experience of GP out-of-hours care. Cross-sectional postal survey of service users (n=1396) of six English out-of-hours providers. Participants reported on four GPPS items evaluating out-of-hours care (three items modified following cognitive interviews with service users), and 14 evaluative items from the Out-of-hours Patient Questionnaire (OPQ). Construct validity was assessed through correlations between any reliable (Cochran's α>0.7) scales, as suggested by a principal component analysis of the modified GPPS items, with the 'entry access' (four items) and 'consultation satisfaction' (10 items) OPQ subscales. Concurrent validity was determined by investigating whether each modified GPPS item was associated with thematically related items from the OPQ using linear regressions. The modified GPPS item-set formed a single scale (α=0.77), which summarised the two-component structure of the OPQ moderately well; explaining 39.7% of variation in the 'entry access' scores (r=0.63) and 44.0% of variation in the 'consultation satisfaction' scores (r=0.66), demonstrating acceptable construct validity. Concurrent validity was verified as each modified GPPS item was highly associated with a distinct set of related items from the OPQ. Minor modifications are required for the English GPPS items evaluating out-of-hours care to improve comprehension by service users. A modified question set was demonstrated to comprise a valid measure of service users' overall satisfaction with out-of-hours care received. This demonstrates the potential for the use of as few as four items in benchmarking providers and assisting services in identifying, implementing and assessing quality improvement initiatives.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 6%
Unknown 17 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 39%
Unspecified 3 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Other 1 6%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 4 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 50%
Unspecified 3 17%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 6%
Other 2 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 19 October 2016.
All research outputs
#3,070,959
of 12,467,785 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Quality & Safety
#919
of 1,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,318
of 273,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Quality & Safety
#38
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,467,785 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,271 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.7. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 273,762 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.