1 resultado para Experience Sampling Methods
em Repository Napier
Filtro por publicador
- Repository Napier (1)
- Aberdeen University (3)
- Abertay Research Collections - Abertay University’s repository (1)
- Academic Archive On-line (Stockholm University; Sweden) (2)
- AMS Tesi di Dottorato - Alm@DL - Università di Bologna (11)
- AMS Tesi di Laurea - Alm@DL - Università di Bologna (2)
- ArchiMeD - Elektronische Publikationen der Universität Mainz - Alemanha (7)
- Archimer: Archive de l'Institut francais de recherche pour l'exploitation de la mer (2)
- Archive of European Integration (1)
- Archivo Digital para la Docencia y la Investigación - Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad del País Vasco (1)
- Aston University Research Archive (29)
- Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo (13)
- Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo (BDPI/USP) (39)
- Biblioteca Virtual del Sistema Sanitario Público de Andalucía (BV-SSPA), Junta de Andalucía. Consejería de Salud y Bienestar Social, Spain (2)
- Biodiversity Heritage Library, United States (1)
- Bioline International (1)
- BORIS: Bern Open Repository and Information System - Berna - Suiça (115)
- Brock University, Canada (9)
- Bulgarian Digital Mathematics Library at IMI-BAS (2)
- CentAUR: Central Archive University of Reading - UK (30)
- Central European University - Research Support Scheme (1)
- Centro Hospitalar do Porto (1)
- CiencIPCA - Instituto Politécnico do Cávado e do Ave, Portugal (3)
- Cochin University of Science & Technology (CUSAT), India (1)
- Collection Of Biostatistics Research Archive (2)
- Comissão Econômica para a América Latina e o Caribe (CEPAL) (2)
- Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya (CSUC), Spain (23)
- Corvinus Research Archive - The institutional repository for the Corvinus University of Budapest (1)
- Dalarna University College Electronic Archive (6)
- Digital Commons - Michigan Tech (9)
- Digital Commons - Montana Tech (1)
- Digital Commons @ DU | University of Denver Research (1)
- Digital Commons at Florida International University (15)
- DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center (20)
- DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln (6)
- Doria (National Library of Finland DSpace Services) - National Library of Finland, Finland (21)
- DRUM (Digital Repository at the University of Maryland) (3)
- Duke University (3)
- Galway Mayo Institute of Technology, Ireland (1)
- Glasgow Theses Service (2)
- Hospitais da Universidade de Coimbra (1)
- Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship Repository (2)
- Institutional Repository of Leibniz University Hannover (1)
- Instituto Politécnico de Viseu (1)
- Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Portugal (3)
- Iowa Publications Online (IPO) - State Library, State of Iowa (Iowa), United States (4)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1)
- Memorial University Research Repository (1)
- National Center for Biotechnology Information - NCBI (2)
- Open University Netherlands (2)
- Publishing Network for Geoscientific & Environmental Data (68)
- QUB Research Portal - Research Directory and Institutional Repository for Queen's University Belfast (5)
- Repositório Científico da Universidade de Évora - Portugal (1)
- Repositório Científico do Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa - Portugal (5)
- Repositório digital da Fundação Getúlio Vargas - FGV (3)
- Repositório do Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central, EPE - Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central, EPE, Portugal (13)
- Repositório do ISCTE - Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (1)
- Repositorio Institucional da UFLA (RIUFLA) (1)
- Repositório Institucional UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista "Julio de Mesquita Filho" (68)
- Research Open Access Repository of the University of East London. (1)
- RUN (Repositório da Universidade Nova de Lisboa) - FCT (Faculdade de Cienecias e Technologia), Universidade Nova de Lisboa (UNL), Portugal (4)
- SAPIENTIA - Universidade do Algarve - Portugal (1)
- School of Medicine, Washington University, United States (1)
- Scielo España (3)
- Scielo Saúde Pública - SP (54)
- Scientific Open-access Literature Archive and Repository (8)
- The Scholarly Commons | School of Hotel Administration; Cornell University Research (1)
- Universidad de Alicante (5)
- Universidad del Rosario, Colombia (2)
- Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (18)
- Universidade do Minho (2)
- Universidade dos Açores - Portugal (3)
- Universidade Estadual Paulista "Júlio de Mesquita Filho" (UNESP) (1)
- Universidade Federal do Pará (7)
- Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN) (2)
- Universidade Técnica de Lisboa (1)
- Universita di Parma (1)
- Universitat de Girona, Spain (1)
- Universitätsbibliothek Kassel, Universität Kassel, Germany (1)
- Université de Lausanne, Switzerland (124)
- Université de Montréal (1)
- Université de Montréal, Canada (12)
- University of Canberra Research Repository - Australia (1)
- University of Cumbria Insight - United Kingdom (1)
- University of Michigan (12)
- University of Queensland eSpace - Australia (39)
- University of Southampton, United Kingdom (1)
- University of Washington (8)
- WestminsterResearch - UK (1)
- Worcester Research and Publications - Worcester Research and Publications - UK (4)
Resumo:
Objective To develop a structurally valid and reliable, yet brief measure of patient experience of hospital quality of care, the Care Experience Feedback Improvement Tool (CEFIT). Also, to examine aspects of utility of CEFIT. Background Measuring quality improvement at the clinical interface has become a necessary component of healthcare measurement and improvement plans, but the effectiveness of measuring such complexity is dependent on the purpose and utility of the instrument used. Methods CEFIT was designed from a theoretical model, derived from the literature and a content validity index (CVI) procedure. A telephone population surveyed 802 eligible participants (healthcare experience within the previous 12 months) to complete CEFIT. Internal consistency reliability was tested using Cronbach's α. Principal component analysis was conducted to examine the factor structure and determine structural validity. Quality criteria were applied to judge aspects of utility. Results CVI found a statistically significant proportion of agreement between patient and practitioner experts for CEFIT construction. 802 eligible participants answered the CEFIT questions. Cronbach's α coefficient for internal consistency indicated high reliability (0.78). Interitem (question) total correlations (0.28–0.73) were used to establish the final instrument. Principal component analysis identified one factor accounting for 57.3% variance. Quality critique rated CEFIT as fair for content validity, excellent for structural validity, good for cost, poor for acceptability and good for educational impact. Conclusions CEFIT offers a brief yet structurally sound measure of patient experience of quality of care. The briefness of the 5-item instrument arguably offers high utility in practice. Further studies are needed to explore the utility of CEFIT to provide a robust basis for feedback to local clinical teams and drive quality improvement in the provision of care experience for patients. Further development of aspects of utility is also required.