Measurement of continuity of care in cardiac patients: reliability and validity of an in-person questionnaire.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breaks in continuity of care occur during the care of patients with cardiac conditions, such as congestive heart failure (CHF) and atrial fibrillation (AF), during their hospitalization, the discharge process or follow-up care. Recently, to measure continuity of care for such patients, a comprehensive questionnaire was developed to reflect the cardiac patient's perspective on multifaceted aspects of continuity of care. OBJECTIVE: To examine the psychometric properties of an in-person interview questionnaire for the measurement of continuity of care in patients recently hospitalized with CHF or AF. METHODS: The Heart Continuity of Care Questionnaire (HCCQ) was administered to 350 cardiac patients (176 with CHF and 174 with AF) at least six months after discharge from hospitals in two urban centres. The questionnaire was assessed by item and principal components analysis. Factors derived from principal components analysis were assessed for internal consistency and construct validity against variables of comorbidity, health status and symptom severity. RESULTS: A principal components analysis produced three subscales. These subscales were internally consistent, and demonstrated construct validity through expected correlations with other variables and theoretical constructs. CONCLUSION: The present study supports the reliability and validity of the HCCQ for measuring continuity of care. The HCCQ subscales correspond to the theoretical components of continuity of care that have been proposed, namely relational, informational and management continuity. The HCCQ subscales may be of value for identifying problems in continuity of care and for evaluating interventions aimed at improving continuity of care for cardiac patients after hospital discharge.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".