Validating the Adult Primary Care Assessment Tool

,; ,; ,

Original Research

Validating the Adult Primary Care Assessment Tool

J Fam Pract. 2001 February;50(2):161

References

1. Starfield B. Balancing health needs, services, and technology. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1998.

2. Bindman AB, Grumback K, Osmond D, et al. Primary care and receipt of preventive services. J Gen Intern Med 1996;11:269-76.

3. Roos N. Who should do the surgery? Tonsillectomy and ade-noidectomy in one Canadian province. Inquiry 1979;16:7383.-

4. Shi L. The relation between primary care and life chances. J Health Care Poor Underserved 1992;3:321-35.

5. Starfield B. Primary care: is it essential? Lancet 1994;344:1129-33.

6. Shi L. Primary care, specialty care, and life chances. Int J Health Serv 1994;24:431-58.

7. Greenfield S, Rogers W, Mangotich M, et al. Outcomes of patients with hypertension and non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus treated by different systems and specialties: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA 1995;274:1436.-

8. Lohr KN, Brooke RH, Kamberg CJ, et al. Use of medical care in the Rand health insurance experiment: diagnosis and service specific analyses in a randomized controlled trial. Med Care 1986;24:S1-87.

9. Goldberg GA, Newhouse JP. Effects of cost sharing on physiological health, health practices, and worry. Health Serv Res 1987;22:279-306.

10. Newhouse JP and the Health Insurance Group. Free for all? Lessons from the Rand Health Insurance Experiment. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 1993.

11. Starfield B. Effectiveness of medical care: validating clinical wisdom. Baltimore, Md: the Johns Hopkins University Press; 1985.

12. Franks P, Fiscella K. Primary care physicians and specialists as personal physicians: health care expenditures and mortality experience. J Fam Pract 1998;47:105-09.

13. Farmer FL, Stokes CS, Fisher RH. Poverty, primary care and age-specific mortality. J Rural Health 1991;7:153-69.

14. Shi L, Starfield B, Kennedy B, Kawachi I. Income inequality, primary care, and health indicators. J Fam Pract 1999;48:275-84.

15. Shi L, Starfield B. Primary care, income inequality, and self-rated health in the US: mixed-level analysis. Int J Health Serv 2000;30:541-55.

16. Shi L, Starfield B. Income inequality, and racial mortality in US Metropolitan areas. Am J Public Health. In press.

17. Starfield B. Primary care: concept, evaluation, and policy. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1992.

18. Flocke SA, Stange KC, Zyzanski S. The association of attributes of primary care with the delivery of clinical preventive services. Med Care 1998;36:AS21-30.

19. Starfield B, Cassady C, Nanda J, Forrest CB, Berk R. Consumer experiences and provider perceptions of the quality of primary care: implications for managed care. J Fam Pract 1998;46:216-26.

20. Safran DG, Kosinski M, Tarlov AR, et al. The primary care assessment survey: test of data quality and measurement performance. Med Care 1998;36:728-39.

21. Bindman AB, Grumback K, Osmond D, et al. Primary care and receipt of preventive services. J Gen Intern Med 1996;11:269-76.

22. Green LA. Science and the future of primary care. J Fam Pract 1996;42:119.-

23. Grumbach K. Separating fad from fact: family medicine, primary care, and the role of health services research. J Fam Pract 1996;43:30.-

24. Donaldson MS, Vanselow NA. The nature of primary care. J Fam Pract 1996;42:113.-

25. Safran DG, Tarlov AR, Rogers WH. Primary care performance in fee-for-service and prepaid health care systems: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA 1994;271:1579.-

26. Forrest CB, Starfield B. Entry into primary care and continuity: the effects of access. Am J Public Health 1998;88:1330-36.

27. Shi L. Experience of primary care by racial and ethnic groups in the US. Med Care 1999;37:1068-77.

28. Shi L. Type of health insurance and quality of primary care experience. Am J Public Health 2000;90:1848-55.

29. Flocke SA. Measuring attributes of primary care: development of a new instrument. J Fam Pract 1997;45:64-74.

30. Cassady C, Starfield B, Hurtado MP, Berk R, Nanda JP, Friedenberg LA. Measuring consumer experiences with primary care. J Ambulatory Pediatric Assoc 2000;105:998-1003.

31. Shi L, Huang Y, Kelly K, Zhao M, Solomon SL. Gastrointestinal symptoms and use of medical care associated with child day care and health care plan among preschool children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1999;18:596-603.

32. Shi L, Ning L, Huang Y, Kelly K, Zhao M. Respiratory symptoms and use of medical care associated with child day care and health care plan among preschool children. J SC Med Assoc. In press.

33. Institute of Medicine. Amanpower policy for primary health care. IOM publication 78-02. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 1978.

34. Institute of Medicine. Defining primary care: an interim report. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1994.

35. Fayers PM, Hard DJ. Factor analysis, causal indicators and quality of life. Quality Life Res 1997;6:139-50.

36. Norman GR, Streiner DL. Biostatistics: the bare essentials. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby; 1994.

37. Hatcher L. Astep-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute; 1994:57-127.

38. Devellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage; 1991.

39. Likert R. Atechnique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 1932;140:1.-

Limitations

Interpretation of our results should take into account some limitations. First, because our study was restricted to 1 locale, the generalizability of the PCAT-AE to other sites and states is not assured. Additional testing and validation is necessary to corroborate the current results. Second, the 74-item questionnaire remains lengthy and could have contributed to relatively high nonresponse and incompletion rates. Future validation work will concentrate on further reduction of the items to the very essential in order to reduce response burden. Regarding the ceiling effect of first contactutilization, future tests will be conducted in other settings with less of a managed care focus, as there well may be quite different distributions of responses in other settings. Third, outcomes of primary care are not the focus of the assessment tool. However, numerous studies have linked primary care to better health outcomes. Subsequent research may help explain which attributes are most conducive to better outcomes so that limited resources can be used to focus on them or a combination of them. Fourth, the measurement of primary care achievement is entirely based on respondents self-report. While self-report may be the best way to ascertain peoples experiences, it is subject to recall and response bias. Moreover, some aspects of technical quality cannot be assessed by patientsor consumers reports.

Despite these limitations, PCAT-AE is a valuable tool for capturing the principal domains of primary care. The next phase of our work seeks to assess the predictive validity of PCAT-AE, by examining the extent to which the principal attributes of primary care can be linked to the achievement of favorable health outcomes, their ability to manage their illnesses, and their satisfaction with the care received. Such work would advance our understanding of the relationship between how primary care is delivered and the health outcomes that result.

Related technical terms

Primary Care Attributes

First contactcare implies accessibility to and use of services for each new problem or new episode of a problem for which people seek health care.

Longitudinalitypresupposes the existence of a regular source of care and its use over time.

Comprehensivenessimplies that primary care facilities must be able to arrange for all types of health care services, including referrals to secondary services for consultation, tertiary services for specific conditions, and essential supporting services, such as home care and other community services.

Coordinationof care requires some form of continuity, either by practitioners, medical records, or both, as well as recognition of problems that are addressed elsewhere and the integration of their care into the total care of patients.

Family centerednessrefers to recognition of family factors related to the genesis and management of illness.

Community orientationrefers to the providers knowledge of community needs and involvement in the community.

Cultural competencerefers to the providers adaptation to facilitate relationships with populations having special cultural characteristics.

Measurement Concepts

Measurement validityrefers to the extent that important dimensions of a concept and their categories have been taken into account and appropriately operationalized.

Measurement reliabilityrefers to the extent that consistent results are obtained when a particular measure is applied to similar elements.

Construct validityis present when the measure captures the major dimensions of the concept under study.

Content validityrefers to the representativeness of the response categories used to represent each of the dimensions of a concept.

Concurrent validitymay be tested by comparing results of one measurement with those of a similar measurement administered to the same population and at approximately the same time. If both measurements yield similar results, then concurrent validity can be established.

Predictive validity exists when the results obtained from the measurement succeed in predicting the expected later-occurring event or circumstance.

Test-retest reliabilityinvolves administering the same measurement to the same individuals at 2 different times. If the correlation between the same measures is high, then the measurement is believed to be reliable.

Split-half reliabilityinvolves preparing 2 sets of measurement of the same concept, applying them to research subjects at one setting, and comparing the correlation between the 2 sets of measurement. To the extent the correlation is high, then the measurement is reliable.

Interrater reliabilityinvolves using different people to conduct the same procedure, whether it be interview, observation, coding, rating, and the like, and comparing the results of their work. To the extent that the results are highly similar, interrater reliability is established.

Item-convergent validityrefers to the substantial correlation between each item and its hypothesized scale.

Item-discriminant validityrefers to items within a scale that correlate more substantially with their hypothesized scale than with any other scale.

Equal item variancerefers to items within a scale that have approximately equal means and variances.