Cross-cultural adaptation of the Quebecois Patient-Centered Coordination by a Care Team Questionnaire for use in France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of chronic disease and multimorbidity is increasing and the associated disease and treatment burden is particularly heavy. Coordinated multidisciplinary, patient-centered care is particularly important for people living with chronic disease or multimorbidity. There was no valid tool to measure the quality of coordinated patient-centered care from the patient's perspective until the Patient-Centered Coordination by a Care Team (PCCCT) questionnaire was recently developed in Canada (Quebec/Ontario). The Quebecois version has been validated but is not directly transferable to France due to linguistic, cultural and health system differences between the two countries. To perform a cross-cultural adaptation of the Quebecois PCCCT questionnaire is therefore necessary to obtain a questionnaire's new version adapted for use in France, ensuring item and semantic equivalence. METHODS: The adaptation process consisted of two stages, both of which were supervised by a scientific committee made up of five healthcare professionals. The first stage was a Delphi consensus involving a multidisciplinary healthcare professional panel to evaluate and harmonize the clarity and appropriateness of the questionnaire for patients in the French health system. During the second stage, adult patients with one or more chronic diseases, from various age, sex, socio-occupational categories, assessed the comprehensibility and conformity of the adapted version of the questionnaire resulting from stage 1 and improved it if necessary. This was achieved using cognitive interviews. RESULTS: During Stage 1, two rounds were undertaken with 10 professional experts resulting in consensual reformulation of 10 out of the 14 items. These newly formulated items and the 4 remaining items were submitted to patients in Stage 2. Cognitive interviews were undertaken with 14 patients, testing 3 successively adapted versions of the questionnaire, until three consecutive patients did not find any ambiguity or misunderstanding. The final version resulting from the cross-cultural adaptation process aimed at being used in France, has item and semantic equivalence to the original Quebecois version. CONCLUSIONS: Measurement equivalence will be addressed in a future study. This French version is intended to be a useful resource for the health system reforms aimed at promoting more integrated and patient-centered care pathways.
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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".