Validation of the howRu and howRwe questionnaires at the individual patient level

Hendriks, Steven H.; Rutgers, Jojanneke; Dijk, Peter R. van; Groenier, Klaas H.; Bilo, Henk J. G.; Kleefstra, Nanne; Kocks, Janwillem; Hateren, Kornelis J. J. van; Blanker, Marco H.

doi:10.1186/s12913-015-1093-8

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regardless of the development of medications and technology, patient experience of illness and medical care is always at the heart of clinical services 2 13–15. Among the various aspects of patient experience, one can assess the extent to which patients receive care that is respectful of and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs and values 1 16 17. Patient experience and patient satisfaction appear to be synonymous but are entirely different 8 12.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of patient experience in county-level public hospitals in China: a multicentred, cross-sectional study

et al. 2019

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesPatient experience is being widely considered in the evaluation of healthcare service quality, which is a key target for public hospitals under China’s New Healthcare Reform. This study aimed to illustrate patients’ experiences in county-level public hospitals, and identify aspects that need to be improved.Setting and participantsBetween 2016 and 2018, a cross-sectional study with 500 outpatients and 800 inpatients was conducted in 10 county-level public hospitals from Shandong Province, Hubei Province and Chongqing Municipality.MethodA three-part questionnaire was used to evaluate patients’ experiences during their visits to hospitals. It comprised a questionnaire for basic information, the Picker Patient Experience (PPE-15) Questionnaire and the overall evaluation (a 3-point Likert scale to express patients’ satisfaction and patient loyalty). Patients’ experiences were classified according to six dimensions (information transmission and patient education, respect for patient preference, emotional support, physical comfort, involvement of family or friends and continuity of medical service). Both univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate patient experience.ResultsA total of 1241 valid questionnaires were analysed. The mean PPE-15 score was 41.33 (range, 23–56). The better the patient experience and satisfaction, the higher the patient loyalty (p<0.001). Except for hospital disparities, patients’ age and occupation status had a significant impact on patient experience (p<0.05). Of the six dimensions, the physical comfort score was the highest, while the respect for patient preference score was the lowest. Additionally, a strong correlation was found between the respect for patient preference dimension and patients’ overall satisfaction with their treatment experience.ConclusionsHospital managers and staff members should pay close attention to the preferences of patients and their families to improve patient experience.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of patient experience in county-level public hospitals in China: a multicentred, cross-sectional study

et al. 2019

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies have compared howRu with SF12 [ 6 ] and with EQ-5D [ 14 ], and show that howRu has comparable overall performance at a single point in time. HowRu is considerably shorter than EQ-5D with 37 words vs. 230 words and has been validated for use at the individual patient level [ 15 ]. Since the original publication of howRu [ 6 ], some small changes have been made.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of EQ-5D, howRu and Oxford hip & knee scores in assessing the outcome of hip and knee replacements

Benson¹,

Williams

Potts³

2016

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWe aimed to compare the performance of EQ-5D-3 L and howRu, which are short generic patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), in assessing the outcome of hip and knee replacements, using the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and the Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) for comparison.MethodsOutcome was assessed as the difference between pre-surgery and 6-month post-surgery scores. We used a large sample from the NHS PROMs database, which used EQ-5D-3 L, and a small cohort of patients having the same operations collected by MyClinicalOutcomes (MCO), which used howRu. Both cohorts completed the OHS (hips) or the OKS (knees).ResultsThe change (outcome) between pre-op and post-op scores as measured by howRu was greater than that measured by EQ-5D, relative to that measured by OHS or OKS.For hip replacements, the correlation for change measured by howRu and OHS was r = 0.77 (0.66–0.85). The corresponding correlation for change measured by EQ-5D Index and OHS was r = 0.64 (0.63–0.64).For knee replacements the correlation between change in howRu and OKS was r = 0.86 (0.75–0.92); between EQ-5D Index and OKS r = 0.59 (0.58–0.60).ConclusionsFor hip and knee replacement, the outcome measured by howRu was more highly correlated with that measured by the condition-specific Oxford Hip and Knee Scores than were EQ-5D Index or EQ-VAS. The magnitude of change before and after surgery was also greater.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1759-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…It forms part of a large family of PROMs and personreported experience measures, completed by patients (or care home residents) and by staff. 10 HowRu has been validated for use at the individual patient level, 11 and for construct validity in ambulatory care in comparison with EQ-5D, 12 13 and SF-12. 8 Resident assessments were collected at the same time as staff assessments and shared the same bar-code identifier.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of staff and resident health status ratings in care homes

Benson

Bowman

2020

BMJ Open Qual

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMany care home residents cannot self-report their own health status. Previous studies have shown differences between staff and resident ratings. In 2012, we collected 10 168 pairs of health status ratings using the howRu health status measure. This paper examines differences between staff and resident ratings.MethodHowRu is a short generic person-reported outcome measure with four items: pain or discomfort (discomfort), feeling low or worried (distress), limited in what you can do (disability) and require help from others (dependence). A summary score (howRu score) is also calculated. Mean scores are shown on a 0–100 scale. High scores are better than low scores. Differences between resident and staff reports (bias) were analysed at the item and summary level by comparing distributions, analysing correlations and a modification of the Bland-Altman method.Results and conclusionsDistributions are similar superficially but differ statistically. Spearman correlations are between 0.55 and 0.67. For items, more than 92.9% of paired responses are within one class; for the howRu summary score, 66% are within one class. Mean differences (resident score minus staff score) on 0–100 scale are pain and discomfort (−1.11), distress (0.67), discomfort (1.56), dependence (3.92) and howRu summary score (1.26). The variation is not the same for different severities. At higher levels of pain and discomfort, staff rated their discomfort and distress as better than residents. On the other hand, staff rated disability and dependence as worse than did residents. This probably reflects differences in perspectives. Red amber green (RAG) thresholds of 10 and 5 points are suggested for monitoring changes in care home mean scores.

show abstract

Validation of the howRu and howRwe questionnaires at the individual patient level

Cited by 12 publications

References 19 publications

Evaluation of patient experience in county-level public hospitals in China: a multicentred, cross-sectional study

Evaluation of patient experience in county-level public hospitals in China: a multicentred, cross-sectional study

Performance of EQ-5D, howRu and Oxford hip & knee scores in assessing the outcome of hip and knee replacements

Comparison of staff and resident health status ratings in care homes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About