Spanish Validation of the "User Reported Measure of Care Coordination" Questionnaire for Older People with Complex, Chronic Conditions

Person-Centered Coordinated Care Experience of People With Long-Term Conditions in the Balearic Islands Measured by the P3CEQ

Objective

This study aimed to use the Person-Centered Coordinated Care Experience Questionnaire (P3CEQ) to assess the experience of person-centered coordinated care among people with long-term conditions in the Balearic Islands, Spain.

Methods

Over 1300 participants receiving treatment for chronic conditions or HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis were invited to complete the P3CEQ and a socio-demographic questionnaire, both administered electronically via the Naveta app. The P3CEQ assesses the key domains of the P3C through an 11-item questionnaire. Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 assess specifically person-centredness (PC subscale), while items 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 measure care coordination (CC subscale; question 7 includes 4 sub-questions to specifically assess care plans). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient characteristics and P3CEQ items scores. Data analysis included chi-squared test of independence, Student's t-test and analysis of variance test. Pairwise comparisons were adjusted by Bonferroni correction.

Results

The P3CEQ and a socio-demographic questionnaire were sent to 1313 individuals (651 men, 657 women, 5 'other gender'). A response rate of 35.34% was achieved, with 464 P3CEQ responders (223 men and 241 women). Significant differences in response rates were observed by age, smoking status, alcohol consumption, membership of patient organizations, and use of alternative medicine. Care planning was rated significantly lower than other measured domains. Women experienced less person-centered care than men (16.64 vs 17.91) and rated care coordination worse than their male counterparts (9.18 vs 10.23). There were also differences in scores between medical condition types, with cancer and inflammatory bowel disease patients rating highest for both person-centered care (21.20 and 19.13, respectively) and care coordination (10.70 vs 10.88, respectively). Patients with skin and rheumatic diseases rated lowest their experience of person-centered care. People with higher education and those employed or studying experienced better person-centeredness.

Conclusion

Using the P3CEQ, we detected significant differences in the care experiences of people with chronic conditions, suggesting the need to address potential gender biases, social inequalities, and the poorer ratings observed for certain conditions in the study population.

Validation and reliability of the Care Vulnerability Index: A study by interrater agreement and test-retest method

Aim

The aim of this study is to determine the validity and reliability of the Care Vulnerability Index (CVI) as a tool to estimate the need and competence of care.

Design

A cross‐sectional survey including a longitudinal component.

Methods

Content validity ratio (CVR) was calculated by interrater agreement of a group of 11 experts in two rounds. The test–retest analysis was measured in an urban population of Colombia with 96 participants through two statistical tests: Pearson's correlation coefficient and the difference in means.

Results

Care Vulnerability Index turned out to be valid with a CVR of 0.879. Reliability by Pearson correlation between test–retest was 0.912 (CI95: 0.872–0.941; p‐value <.01) and there was no significant mean difference between test and retest in global score and in clustered groups of variables. Validating CVI will make it possible to prioritize healthcare resources in the population and identify people susceptible to care problems.

Development of a specialty intensity score to estimate a patient's need for care coordination across physician specialties

BACKGROUNDS AND AIMS

This article develops a Specialty Intensity Score, which uses patient diagnosis codes to estimate the number of specialist physicians a patient will need to access. Conceptually, the score can serve as a proxy for a patient's need for care coordination across doctors. Such a measure may be valuable to researchers studying care coordination practices for complex patients. In contrast with previous comorbidity scores, which focus primarily on mortality and utilization, this comorbidity score approximates the complexity of a patient's the interaction with the health care system.

METHODS

We use 2015 inpatient claims data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to model the relationship between a patient's diagnoses and physician specialty usage. We estimate usage of specialist doctors by using a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator Poisson model. The Specialty Intensity Score is then constructed using this predicted specialty usage. To validate our score, we test its power to predict the occurrence of patient safety incidents and compare that with the predictive power of the Charlson comorbidity index.

RESULTS

Our model uses 127 of the 279 International Classification of Disease, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis subchapters to predict specialty usage, thus creating the Specialty Intensity Score. This score has significantly greater power in predicting patient safety complications than the widely used Charlson comorbidity index.

CONCLUSION

The Specialty Intensity Score developed in this article can be used by health services researchers and administrators to approximate a patient's need for care coordination across multiple specialist doctors. It, therefore, can help with evaluation of care coordination practices by allowing researchers to restrict their analysis of outcomes to the patients most impacted by those practices.

Design, Assessment, and Validation of a Questionnaire to Estimate Food-Dependent Exercise-Induced Anaphylaxis Prevalence in Latin American Population

There are no epidemiological data about food-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis (FDEIA) in Latin America. Our aim was to design, assess, and validate a questionnaire to identify potential FDEIA cases and/or estimate its prevalence by self-report. Questions were included in the instrument to address the main symptoms of FDEIA, type/intensity of physical activity, and anaphylaxis. The instrument’s clarity, comprehension and repeatability were evaluated. These evaluations were carried out by Hispanic people (Argentinians/Colombians/Mexicans/Peruvians), including nine individuals with medical diagnosis of FDEIA, and Brazilians. The Flesch–Kincaid score was calculated using the INFLESZ software. The instrument was translated from Spanish to Brazilian Portuguese following the translation back-translation procedure. The participants rated the two versions of the questionnaire as clear and comprehensible (three-point ordinal scale) and very easy to understand [0.33; average (scale 0–10)]. For these evaluations, the Kendall’s W coefficient showed strong agreement among raters (W = 0.80; average). The Flesch–Kincaid score was 63.5 in average (documents considered as readable). The Cohen’s Kappa coefficient showed almost perfect agreement in repeatability (0.88; average). The validation process of two versions of an instrument, used to identify potential FDEIA cases, was successfully carried out and it was found applicable to Latin American countries for generating epidemiological data.