Development of a patient experience questionnaire to improve lifestyle services in primary care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AimWe developed a self-report tool to assess patients' experiences with lifestyle services in team-based primary care and pilot tested the questionnaire as part of a lifestyle intervention study to reverse metabolic syndrome. BACKGROUND: Older client satisfaction questionnaires have been generally inadequate for quality improvement purposes, as they have been focused mainly on interpersonal skills of providers and/or in the context of one disease. New approaches to assessing the patient experience of lifestyle programs in primary care are needed and could inform quality improvement efforts over time. METHODS: The first phase in developing the questionnaire involved a group-administered questionnaire distributed to 38 healthcare providers in five groups to prioritize variables to include in the survey. Concepts were taken from a previous review of available questionnaires assessing primary care services. The draft questionnaire was reviewed by 11 participants from a lifestyle program using think-aloud cognitive interviewing techniques. The modified self-administered questionnaire (paper and online versions) was then pilot tested with 164 recipients of a nutrition and physical activity intervention program.FindingsProviders ranked the top variables to include in the questionnaire as: 'trust,' 'general communication,' 'first-contact accessibility,' 'whole-person care,' and 'respectfulness.' After cognitive interviewing and revisions, 21 multiple choice and two open-ended questions were used for pilot testing. Pilot testing identified additional minor wording changes that were needed for clarity, a decreased number of questions for redundant concepts, and decreased options for ceiling effects, resulting in 20 multiple choice and one open-ended question. CONCLUSIONS: The modified self-administered patient experience questionnaire to assess lifestyle services in primary care has undergone rigorous development. Further validation is needed. The assessment of patient experience of lifestyle programs can be used to supplement other data to assess the overall effectiveness of such programs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".