Table 2 Descriptive statistics of perceived level of patient-centered care items (N = 594)
Patient-centered care dimension Response options: 1 = Very poor; 5 = Very good | Mean (SD) |
|---|---|
Patients’ preferences; Cronbach’s α = 0.90 | 4.11 (1.04) |
1. I felt taken seriously | 4.35(0.89) |
2. My wishes and preferences were taken into account when choosing a treatment | 4.08(1.04) |
3. I was involved in decisions about my treatment | 4.05(1.07) |
4. The influence that the treatment can have on my life was taken into account | 3.7(1.33) |
5. I was helped to determine my own treatment goals | 4.16(1.01) |
6. I felt supported to achieve my treatment goals | 4.18(1.01) |
7. I received advice that I really could use | 4.27(0.99) |
Physical comfort; Cronbach’s α = 0.83 | 4.20(0.98) |
1. Attention was given to my physical comfort (such as the management of pain, shortness of breath) | 4.05(1.06) |
2. Attention was paid to fatigue and insomnia | 4(1.12) |
3. The (waiting) rooms were clean | 4.4(0.82) |
4. The (waiting) rooms were comfortable | 4.19(1.04) |
5. In the treatment room(s) and at the counter there was sufficient privacy | 4.4(0.86) |
Coordination of care; Cronbach’s α = 0.80 | 3.92(1.115) |
1. Everyone was well informed; I only had to tell my story once | 4.14(1.04) |
2. The care was well attuned between the practitioners involved | 4.14(0.98) |
3. I knew who was coordinating my care | 3.93(1.13) |
4. I could easily contact someone with questions | 3.47(1.31) |
Continuity and transition; Cronbach’s α = 0.83 | 4.0875(0.985) |
1. When being referred to another care provider (specialist /dietician/ physiotherapist) I was well informed about where to go and why | 3.86(1.11) |
2. With a referral, all my information was passed on correctly | 4.25(0.91) |
3. Advice (such as medication) from different practitioners (medical specialists and family doctor) was well attuned to each other | 4.11(0.97) |
4. The treatment of the family doctor is in line with the treatment of other care providers | 4.13(0.95) |
Emotional support; Cronbach’s α = 0.87 | 3.86(1.145) |
1. Emotional support was also provided | 3.89(1.09) |
2. Attention was paid to possible feelings of fear, gloom and anxiety | 3.95(1.09) |
3. I was made aware of the possibilities for more intensive emotional support | 3.67(1.2) |
4. Attention was paid to the impact of my health on my private life (family, relatives, work, social life) | 3.93(1.2) |
Access to care; Cronbach’s α = 0.78 | 3.976(1.136) |
1. It was no problem to go from my home to my family doctor and back again | 4.14(1.11) |
2. The general practice was easily accessible | 4.22(0.95) |
3. I could easily schedule an appointment quickly | 3.96(1.21) |
4. On a visit I didn’t have to wait long before it was my turn | 3.52(1.32) |
5. I could easily request a repeat recipe | 4.04(1.09) |
Information and education; Cronbach’s α = 0.84 | 4.25(0.9525) |
1. I was well informed | 4.36(0.86) |
2. The information I received was well explained | 4.28(0.95) |
3. I had easy access to my own data (lab results, medication overview, referrals) | 3.91(1.2) |
4. I could ask all the questions I wanted | 4.45(0.8) |
Family and friends; Cronbach’s α = 0.85 | 4.22 (0.97) |
1. With my consent, relatives were involved in my treatment | 4.16(1.03) |
2. Attention was given to care and support provided by family members | 4.32(0.91) |
3. Attention was given to possible questions from my family members | 4.19(0.99) |