4.5 Article

Development of a questionnaire to assess communication preferences of patients with chronic illness

Journal

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
Volume 82, Issue 1, Pages 81-88

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.02.011

Keywords

Provider-patient communication; Communication preferences; Patient participation; Item response theory

Funding

  1. Federal Ministry of Education and Research [01 GX 0740]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The objectives of the study are to develop a patient-oriented and theory-based questionnaire on the communication preferences of chronically ill patients (KOPRA questionnaire) and to carry out psychometric testing of the instrument. Methods: Following two preliminary studies (focus groups, cognitive interviews), a total of 472 patients with chronic back pain or chronic ischemic heart disease were surveyed. In the main sample (N = 333), communication preferences regarding the physician were assessed; for N = 89 (or N = 50) patients, preferences regarding nursing staff (or therapists) were analyzed. Psychometric testing was done with respect to unidimensionality, fit to an item response theory (IRT) model, and for reliability. The questionnaire was developed and validated in German. Results: In the physician version with a total of 32 items, there are four scales (Patient participation and patient orientation, Effective and open communication, Emotionally supportive communication, and Communication about personal circumstances) that are unidimensional, fulfill the demands for a 1-parameter IRT model, and are reliable (Cronbach's alpha between .80 and .92). The psychometric properties with respect to nursing staff and therapists are slightly worse. Conclusion: The KOPRA questionnaire has good psychometric properties. Practice implications: Clinical use of the questionnaire appears useful to determine patients' communication preferences. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available