Background The Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) is an established patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that reflects the quality of appointments with general practitioners (GPs). It is a six-item questionnaire administered to the patient immediately after a consultation. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a single-item measure could replace the PEI when measuring patient enablement among Finnish health care centre patients. Methods Two single-item measures, Q1 and Q2, were chosen for comparison with the PEI. Firstly, a pilot study with questionnaire testing and brief interviews with the respondents were performed in order to assess the content validity of the PEI and the single-item measures. Secondly, a questionnaire study after a single appointment with a GP was carried out in three health care centres in Western Finland in order to evaluate the construct and criterion validity of the single-item measures. A telephone interview was performed 2 weeks after the appointment in order to assess the test-retest reliability of the single-item measures. The sensitivity, specificity, and both positive and negative predictive values of Q1 and Q2 were calculated with different PEI score cut-off points. Results Altogether 483 patients with a completed PEI were included in the questionnaire study analyses. Altogether 149 and 175 patients had completed Q1 and Q2, respectively, both in the questionnaire and the telephone interview. The correlations between the PEI and Q1 and Q2 were 0.48 and 0.84, respectively. Both the single-item measures had a high sensitivity and a negative predictive value in relation to patients with lower PEI scores. The reliability coefficients were 0.24 for Q1 and 0.76 for Q2. The test-retest values of Q1, Q2, and the PEI were low. Conclusions Q2 seems to be a valid and reliable measure of patient enablement. Q1 seems to be less correlated with the PEI, but it also has a high negative predictive value in relation to low enablement scores.

Background: Patient enablement is described as patient’s ability to understand and cope with illness after a consultation. The purpose of this study was to analyze factors associated with enablement in Finnish primary health care. An additional aim was to evaluate whether a single question could be used to measure enablement. Methods: A questionnaire survey was addressed to Finnish general practitioners (GPs) within the Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe (QUALICOPC) study framework. A trained fieldworker contacted nine patients for every participating GP. Two to 9 patients per GP (median 9 patients) completed the questionnaire. Patient enablement was measured by a single question based on the Patient Enablement Instrument questionnaire. Multivariate and multilevel analyses were performed to find variables that have an independent association with patient enablement. Results: A total of 1196 patients completed the QUALICOPC questionnaire. A total of 898 patients (75.1%) agreed that they felt better able to cope with their health problem or illness after an appointment with a GP, reflecting patient enablement. In the theme group analyses, 11 factors were found to have a statistically significant (P < .05) association with enablement. In the final multivariable model, positive perceptions of doctor-patient communication and patient satisfaction were positively associated with enablement. Conclusions: The results, using a single question to measure enablement, are comparable to previous findings on factors associated with enablement. Further research is needed and these results should be regarded as preliminary.

Background Patient enablement is a concept developed to measure quality in primary health care. The comparative analysis of patient enablement in an international context is lacking. Objective To explain variation in patient enablement between patients, general practitioners (GPs) and countries. To find independent variables associated with enablement. Design We constructed multi‐level logistic regression models encompassing variables from patient, GP and country levels. The proportions of explained variances at each level and odds ratios for independent variables were calculated. Setting and Participants A total of 7210 GPs and 58 930 patients in 31 countries were recruited through the Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe (QUALICOPC) study framework. In addition, data from the Primary Health Care Activity Monitor for Europe (PHAMEU) study and Hofstede's national cultural dimensions were combined with QUALICOPC data. Results In the final model, 50.6% of the country variance and 18.4% of the practice variance could be explained. Cultural dimensions explained a major part of the variation between countries. Several patient‐level and only a few practice‐level variables showed statistically significant associations with patient enablement. Structural elements of the relevant health‐care system showed no associations. From the 20 study hypotheses, eight were supported and four were partly supported. Discussion and Conclusions There are large differences in patient enablement between GPs and countries. Patient characteristics and patients’ perceptions of consultation seem to have the strongest associations with patient enablement. When comparing patient‐reported measures as an indicator of health‐care system performance, researchers should be aware of the influence of cultural elements.

ObjectiveAccess to care is a multidimensional concept, considered as a structural aspect of health care quality; it reflects the functioning of a health care organization. The aim of this study was to investigate patients’ experiences of access to care and to analyse factors associated with waiting times to GP appointments at Finnish health centres. A questionnaire survey was addressed to Finnish GPs within the Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe study framework. Two to nine patients per GP completed the questionnaire, altogether 1196. Main outcome measures were waiting times for appointments with GPs and factors associated with waiting times. In addition, patients’ opinions of access to appointments were analysed.ResultsOf the 988 patients who had made their appointment in advance, 84.9% considered it easy to secure an appointment, with 51.9% obtaining an appointment within 1 week. Age and reason for contact were the most significant factors affecting the waiting time. Elderly patients tended to have longer waiting times than younger ones, even when reporting illness as their reason for contact. Thus, waiting times for appointments tend to be prolonged in particular for the elderly and there is room for improvement in the future.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13104-018-3316-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.