Measuring health consumers’ engagement at the governance level: development and validation of the Middlemore Consumer Engagement Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To develop and validate a questionnaire to measure health CE at governance level. METHOD: This study used qualitative and quantitative methods (including focus groups, cognitive interviews and an international survey), and consisted of two phases. In Phase 1, an initial list of items was generated and refined with feedback from health consumer representatives. In Phase 2, a draft survey was distributed to n=227 consumers from New Zealand, Australia and Canada. The benefit and relevance of using the questionnaire was explored through face-to-face interviews with five CE leaders from New Zealand healthcare organisations. RESULTS: The proposed questionnaire comprises 25 statements relating to CE. Respondents indicate their level of agreement with the statements on a five-point Likert-type scale. Focus group and cognitive interview participants found the questionnaire relevant and easy to understand. The questionnaire scores correlated with the PPEET, another instrument measuring consumer engagement, and showed excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.97), unidimensionality and test-retest reliability (r=0.84). CONCLUSION: The proposed questionnaire measures CE at governance level and can be used for international comparisons and benchmarking. It showed sound psychometric properties and its value and relevance was recognised by health consumer representatives and leaders with CE roles in New Zealand healthcare organisations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".