Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (15)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Steine, S.
Right arrow Articles by Laerum, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Steine, S.
Right arrow Articles by Laerum, E.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Family Practice Vol. 18, No. 4, 410-418
© Oxford University Press 2001

A new, brief questionnaire (PEQ) developed in primary health care for measuring patients' experience of interaction, emotion and consultation outcome

Siri Steine, Arnstein Finset,a and Even Laerum

Institute of General Practice and Community Medicine and
a Department of Behavioral Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway.

Siri Steine, MD, PhD, Kirkeveien 169c, 1384 Asker, Norway.

Background. A deepened understanding of patients' perspectives is essential in order to improve medical communication. By changing focus from patient satisfaction to patient experiences, more immediate, personal and affective responses may be captured.

Objective. Our aim was to develop a new consultation-specific questionnaire on patient experiences.

Methods. The questionnaire was developed in Norwegian primary care in three main phases. Phase 1: focus groups with patients in order to identify important aspects of patients' experiences, and their words and language when describing such experiences. Phase 2: a questionnaire survey with 110 items including 660 patients. Extensive testing resulted in a reduction to 25 items on six dimensions. Phase 3: a questionnaire survey with 25 items including 1092 patients. Psychometric analyses and feedback from patients and physicians involved dimensionality and tests of validity and reliability.

Results. A final questionnaire was produced with 18 items on five dimensions: communication; emotions; short-term outcome; barriers; and relations with the auxiliary staff. The validity and reliability estimates were highly satisfactory. Three scales were skewed while two were more equally distributed. Forty-eight per cent of the patients described less than optimal communication experiences; some communication barriers were detected in 70% of the visits and less helpful experiences with the staff were reported in 55% of the visits. Twenty-four per cent of patients left with no positive feelings, and 48% scored low on the outcome scale (knowledge, perceived result).

Conclusions. The patient experience questionnaire (PEQ) emphasizes what patients value the most, i.e. interaction, emotions and outcome, and may represent a valuable tool for doctors who want feedback from their patients on the function of their doctor–patient relationships.

Keywords. Patient experiences, primary care, questionnaire.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Fam PractHome page
R. G Evans, A. Edwards, S. Evans, B. Elwyn, and G. Elwyn
Assessing the practising physician using patient surveys: a systematic review of instruments and feedback methods
Fam. Pract., April 1, 2007; 24(2): 117 - 127.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Arch Pediatr Adolesc MedHome page
G. A. Seecharan, E. M. Andresen, K. Norris, and S. S. Toce
Parents' Assessment of Quality of Care and Grief Following a Child's Death
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, June 1, 2004; 158(6): 515 - 520.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.