The revised Patient Perception of Patient‐Centeredness Questionnaire: Exploring the factor structure in French‐speaking patients with multimorbidity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Patient Perception of Patient-Centeredness (PPPC) questionnaire was revised, and there is a need for the questionnaire to be tested in diverse primary care populations. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine the factor structure of the Revised PPPC questionnaire (PPPC-R) in French-speaking patients with multimorbidity. DESIGN: Secondary analysis from baseline data of the French arm of Patient-Centered Innovations for Persons with Multimorbidity Study (PACEinMM Study). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Participants were adult patients with multimorbidity attending primary health-care settings. OUTCOME MEASURES: Exploratory factor analyses were applied to examine the factor structure of the PPPC-R. Cronbach's alpha values were calculated to assess the internal consistency of the whole questionnaire and of each factor explored. RESULTS: There were 301 participants, mean age 61.0, 53.2% female. The PPPC-R showed very good internal consistency, with three factors: Patient-Centered Clinical Method (PCCM) Component 1-Exploring the health, disease and illness experience + PCCM Component 4-Enhancing the patient-clinician relationship (Factor 1); PCCM Component 2-Understanding the whole person (Factor 2); and PCCM Component 3-Finding common ground (Factor 3). There was a good internal consistency within each factor (Cronbach's α = 0.87 for 8 items in Factor 1, 0.77 for 5 items in Factor 2 and 0.87 for 5 items in Factor 3). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The French PPPC-R factor structure was in accordance with the underpinning conceptual model and presented with three factors. Further assessment of its validity and reproducibility are needed to allow its use as a measure of patient's perception of patient-centeredness.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".