Assessing patient-centered care: Validation of the French Version of the Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale, aims and objectives: Patient-centered care (PCC) is widely acknowledged as a central component of high-quality health care and it has been associated with many positive outcomes for patients. Although many studies support the benefits of PCC, the style of practice may vary from a caregiver to another. To measure PCC and investigate the factors that may be related to this concept, it is necessary to have rigorous instruments. Thus, the aim of this study was to adapt and validate a French version of the PPOS (F-PPOS) for the assessment of PCC in both nurses and physicians who work with chronic pain patients.Method: The PPOS was translated and validated in a French population of nurses and physicians according to the Hébert methodological recommendations for translation and validation. The final version of the F-PPOS was distributed to 21 nurses and 21 physicians working with chronic pain patients. The content validity and the internal consistency were assessed. Results: The expert panel was satisfied with the content validity of this instrument. The internal consistency was acceptable for the total score for all participants (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.60), for nurses (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.62) and for physicians (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.54). The F-PPOS showed good content validity and acceptable internal consistency.Conclusions: The F-PPOS could be used in future studies in French populations, in both nurses and physicians. This instrument can also be used to compare the type of approach between caregivers in worldwide since it is available in several languages.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".