1 resultado para acceptability
em Repository Napier
Filtro por publicador
- JISC Information Environment Repository (1)
- Repository Napier (1)
- Aberdeen University (5)
- Aberystwyth University Repository - Reino Unido (2)
- AMS Tesi di Dottorato - Alm@DL - Università di Bologna (2)
- AMS Tesi di Laurea - Alm@DL - Università di Bologna (1)
- Aquatic Commons (26)
- Archimer: Archive de l'Institut francais de recherche pour l'exploitation de la mer (4)
- Archivo Digital para la Docencia y la Investigación - Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad del País Vasco (1)
- Aston University Research Archive (33)
- Biblioteca de Teses e Dissertações da USP (5)
- Biblioteca Digital | Sistema Integrado de Documentación | UNCuyo - UNCUYO. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE CUYO. (3)
- Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo (9)
- Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo (BDPI/USP) (6)
- Biblioteca Digital de la Universidad Católica Argentina (1)
- Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações Eletrônicas da UERJ (7)
- Bioline International (2)
- BORIS: Bern Open Repository and Information System - Berna - Suiça (23)
- Brock University, Canada (2)
- Bucknell University Digital Commons - Pensilvania - USA (1)
- Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (2)
- CentAUR: Central Archive University of Reading - UK (33)
- Chinese Academy of Sciences Institutional Repositories Grid Portal (1)
- Cochin University of Science & Technology (CUSAT), India (5)
- CORA - Cork Open Research Archive - University College Cork - Ireland (5)
- Corvinus Research Archive - The institutional repository for the Corvinus University of Budapest (1)
- Dalarna University College Electronic Archive (6)
- Deakin Research Online - Australia (138)
- Department of Computer Science E-Repository - King's College London, Strand, London (1)
- DI-fusion - The institutional repository of Université Libre de Bruxelles (1)
- Digital Commons - Michigan Tech (2)
- Digital Commons - Montana Tech (1)
- Digital Commons at Florida International University (4)
- DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center (13)
- DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln (3)
- DRUM (Digital Repository at the University of Maryland) (2)
- Duke University (9)
- eResearch Archive - Queensland Department of Agriculture; Fisheries and Forestry (4)
- Glasgow Theses Service (3)
- Greenwich Academic Literature Archive - UK (3)
- Helda - Digital Repository of University of Helsinki (10)
- Indian Institute of Science - Bangalore - Índia (7)
- Instituto Politécnico de Bragança (1)
- Instituto Politécnico de Viseu (1)
- Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Portugal (3)
- Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada - Lisboa (2)
- Lume - Repositório Digital da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (1)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1)
- Memorial University Research Repository (1)
- National Center for Biotechnology Information - NCBI (5)
- Nottingham eTheses (2)
- Portal de Revistas Científicas Complutenses - Espanha (1)
- Publishing Network for Geoscientific & Environmental Data (1)
- QUB Research Portal - Research Directory and Institutional Repository for Queen's University Belfast (63)
- Queensland University of Technology - ePrints Archive (94)
- RepoCLACAI - Consorcio Latinoamericano Contra el Aborto Inseguro (1)
- Repositório Científico da Universidade de Évora - Portugal (3)
- Repositorio de la Universidad de Cuenca (1)
- Repositório digital da Fundação Getúlio Vargas - FGV (6)
- Repositório Institucional da Universidade de Aveiro - Portugal (1)
- Repositório Institucional da Universidade de Brasília (1)
- Repositório Institucional da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande - FURG (1)
- Repositório Institucional da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (1)
- Repositório Institucional da Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná (RIUT) (3)
- Repositório Institucional UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista "Julio de Mesquita Filho" (86)
- RUN (Repositório da Universidade Nova de Lisboa) - FCT (Faculdade de Cienecias e Technologia), Universidade Nova de Lisboa (UNL), Portugal (1)
- SAPIENTIA - Universidade do Algarve - Portugal (3)
- Savoirs UdeS : plateforme de diffusion de la production intellectuelle de l’Université de Sherbrooke - Canada (2)
- School of Medicine, Washington University, United States (1)
- Universidad de Alicante (6)
- Universidad del Rosario, Colombia (4)
- Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (15)
- Universidade do Algarve (1)
- Universidade Federal do Pará (3)
- Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN) (10)
- Universidade Metodista de São Paulo (2)
- Universidade Técnica de Lisboa (1)
- Universita di Parma (1)
- Universitat de Girona, Spain (1)
- Université de Lausanne, Switzerland (2)
- Université de Montréal (5)
- Université de Montréal, Canada (29)
- Université Laval Mémoires et thèses électroniques (1)
- University of Canberra Research Repository - Australia (1)
- University of Michigan (6)
- University of Queensland eSpace - Australia (24)
- University of Washington (2)
- WestminsterResearch - UK (4)
- Worcester Research and Publications - Worcester Research and Publications - UK (2)
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.