The “Patient-centered coordination by a care team” questionnaire achieves satisfactory validity and reliability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing prevalence of chronic conditions and multimorbidity challenges health care systems and calls for patient-centered coordination of care. Implementation and evaluation of health policies focusing on the development of patient-centered coordination of care needs valid instruments measuring this dimension of care. The aim of this validation study was to assess the psychometric properties of the French version of the 14-item Patient-Centered Coordination by a Care Team (PCCCT) questionnaire in a primary care setting. PCCCT provides a total score from 0 (worst coordination) to 42 (best coordination). 165 adult patients consulting in primary care with one or more chronic condition(s) completed questionnaires (including PCCCT) at recruitment. After three weeks, participants completed PCCCT again, either by mail (group A) or during a telephone interview (group B). At recruitment, the mean (SD) PCCCT score was 33.3 (7.7). Exploratory factor analysis revealed a 2-dimension structure, 8 items relating to patient involvement and 6 items relating to coordination (factors loadings ranging from 0.34 to 0.88). PCCCT score correlated significantly with subscales of Haggerty's continuity questionnaire, Spearman correlation coefficients (95% confidence interval) ranging from 0.40 (0.22-0.57) to 0.52 (0.38-0.63). Internal consistency was excellent: Cronbach alpha 0.90 (0.79-0.92). Reliability was good, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.68 (0.55-0.78) for test-retest reliability (group A) and of 0.65 (0.46-0.79) for reliability between the self-administered and the interviewer-administered versions of the questionnaire (group B,). The PCCCT questionnaire presents satisfactory validity and reliability; it can be used for the evaluation of health organizations involving team work in primary care.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".