Objectives The aim of this study was to test the reliability and validity of a new questionnaire for measuring patient experiences with general practitioners (PEQ-GP) following a national survey.
Setting Postal survey among patients on any of 500 GPs patient lists in Norway. GPs were stratified by practice size and geographical criteria.
Participants 4964 patients who had at least one consultation with their regular GP in the foregoing 12 months were included in the study. The patients were randomly selected after the selection of GPs. 2377 patients (49%) responded to the survey.
Primary and secondary outcome measures The items were assessed for missing data and ceiling effects. Factor structure was assessed using exploratory factor analyses. Reliability was tested with item–total correlation, Cronbach’s alpha and test–retest correlations. Item discriminant validity was tested by correlating items with all scales. Construct validity was assessed through associations of scale scores with health status, the patients’ general satisfaction with the services, whether the patient had been incorrectly treated by the GP and whether the patient would recommend the GP to others.
Results Item missing varied from 1.0% to 3.1%, while ceiling effects varied from 16.1% to 45.9%. The factor analyses identified three factors. Reliability statistics for scales based on these three factors, and two theoretically derived scales, showed item–total correlations ranging from 0.63 to 0.85 and Cronbach’s alpha values from 0.77 to 0.93. Test–retest correlation for the five scales varied from 0.72 to 0.88. All scales had the expected association with other variables.
Conclusions The PEQ-GP has good evidence for data quality, internal consistency and construct validity. The PEQ-GP is recommended for use in local, regional and national surveys in Norway, but further studies are needed to assess the instrument’s ability to detect differences over time and between different GPs.
- general practitioners
- patient satisfaction
This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors All authors participated in the planning process. OH performed the statistical analyses and drafted the manuscript. HHI, OAB and KD critically revised the manuscript draft and approved the final version of the manuscript. OH was the project manager for the development of the questionnaire. All authors participated in the development process.
Funding The study was financed by the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services (merged with the Norwegian Institute of Public Health in 2016).
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval The Norwegian Regional Committee for MedicalRegional committee for medical and health research ethics south east.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to protection of personal information but selected data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.