Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Med Care. 2021 Mar 1;59(3):228–237. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001474

Table 2.

Surveys measuring patient, person or family-centeredness from the perspective of patients or families in the hospital setting.

Survey name and author Survey description Author-reported Subscales Picker PCC dimensions† Psychometric properties
Setting and sample for administration Number of items Response scale
Picker Patient Experience (PPE-15); Jenskinson et al.35 Patients (n=62,925) from acute care hospitals in five countries (UK, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and the USA) 15 yes/no or 3 to 4 scale choices

  1. Information and education

  2. Coordination of care

  3. Physical comfort

  4. Emotional support

  5. Respect for patient preferences

  6. Involvement of family and friends

  7. Continuity and transition

  8. Overall impression

  1. Respect for patient preferences (3)

  2. Coordination and integration of care (1)

  3. Information and education (2)

  4. Physical comfort (1)

  5. Emotional support (3)

  6. Involvement of family and friends (2)

  7. Continuity and transition (3)

 Total scale α=0.80 to 0.87 (by country)
Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) Survey; Goldstein et al.36 Patients (n=49,812) from 45 Maryland hospitals, 26 Arizona hospitals and 61 New York hospitals 25, excluding demographic questions yes/no, 4-point scale and 10-point scale for rating experience during the hospitalization

  1. Communication with doctors

  2. Communication with nurses

  3. Responsiveness of hospital staff

  4. Pain management

  5. Communication about medicines

  6. Discharge information

  7. Cleanliness and noise level of the physical environment

  8. Overall rating of the hospital

  9. Willingness to recommend the hospital

  1. Respect for patient preferences (4)

  2. Information and education (4)

  3. Physical comfort (6)

  4. Continuity and transition (6)

  5. Access to care (2)

 *Analysis of the original 33 items with
Item-total composite correlations were >0.4, for all but 2 items. 6 factors identified with 30 of 33 items loading >0.3. Shortened (16 question) version: Subscale #1-#7 α=0.51–0.88, >0.7 for 4 of 7 subscales. 16 questions load on to 7 factors with factor loadings >0.5744
Person-centered climate questionnaire—patient version (PCQ-P); Edvardsson et al.37 Patients (n=544) in 21 sub-acute and acute hospital wards in Sweden 17 7-point Likert scale

  1. Safety

  2. Everydayness

  3. Hospitality

  1. Respect for patient preferences (5)

  2. Information and education (2)

  3. Physical comfort (4)

  4. Emotional support (2)

  5. Involvement of family and friends (1)

  6. Access to care (1)

 Total scale α=0.93; Subscales: α=0.64–0.94; Average ICC 0.73 (95% CI 0.58–0.85)
Person-centered climate questionnaire—family version (PCQ-F); Lindahl et al.38 Family members (n=200) in one Emergency Department in Sweden 17 6-point Likert scale

  1. Safety

  2. Everydayness

  3. Hospitality

  1. Respect for patient preferences (5)

  2. Information and education (2)

  3. Physical comfort (4)

  4. Emotional support (2)

  5. Involvement of family and friends (1)

  6. Access to care (1)

 Total scale α=0.93; Subscales α=0.75–0.95
Family Inventory of Needs (FIN); Catlin, et al.39 Parents (n=19) of pediatric oncology patients 20 Answer choices have three options (e.g: met, unmet, blank)

  1. Importance of family need

  2. Met/unmet family needs

  1. Respect for patient preferences (3)

  2. Information and education (12)

  3. Emotional support (3)

  4. Involvement of family and friends (1)

  5. Continuity and transition (1)

 #Total scale α=0.83–0.9642,43

Abbreviations: PCC: patient-centered care; ICC: intraclass correlation coefficient; CI: confidence interval

†

The numbers in parentheses refer to the number of survey items associated with the listed Picker dimension. Items were assigned to only one Picker dimension. Some items did not match one of the Picker dimensions and were labeled as not applicable. The number of not applicable items in each survey are not included in the table.

*

The HACHPS article by Goldstein et al. identified in our search referenced previous publications providing the psychometric data, primarily Keller et al. 2005, which is reflected in the HCAHPS psychometric properties reported.

#

Cronbach’s alpha as reported by Kristjanson et al. 1995 and Fridriksdottir et al 2006.