Back

Using a health equity lens to measure patient experiences of care in diverse healthcare settings

Browne, A. J.; Varcoe, C.; Ford-Gilboe, M.; Wathen, C. N.; Wilson, E.; Bungay, V.; Perrin, N.

2024-01-15 health systems and quality improvement
10.1101/2024.01.12.24301257 medRxiv
Show abstract

People who are structurally disadvantaged and marginalized often report poor health care experiences due to intersecting forms of stigma and discrimination. There are many measures of patient experiences of care, however, few are designed to measure equity-oriented care. In alignment with ongoing calls to integrate actions in support of health equity, we report on the development and testing of patient experiences of care measures that explicitly use a health equity and intersectional lens. Our analysis focuses on two different equity-oriented health care scales. The first was piloted in a primary health care setting, where patients have an ongoing relationship with providers over time. The second was piloted in an emergency department, where care is provided on an episodic basis. Item Response Theory was used to develop the scales and evaluate their psychometric properties. The primary health care scale, tested with a cohort of 567 patients, showed that providing more equity-oriented health care predicted improvements in important patient self-report health outcomes over time. The episodic scale, tested in an emergency department setting with 284 patients, showed evidence of concurrent validity, based on a high correlation with quality of care. Both scales are brief, easy-to-administer self-report measures that can support organizations to monitor quality of care using an equity lens. The availability of both scales enhances the possibility of measuring equity-oriented health care in diverse contexts. Both scales can shed light on experiences of care using an intersectional lens and equity-oriented lens, providing a nuanced understanding of quality of care.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 10%
18.2%
2
SSM - Population Health
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.1%
3
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 2%
10.1%
4
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.4%
5
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.8%
6
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
7
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.3%
8
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.0%
9
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.0%
10
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.1%
11
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.6%
12
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
13
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.7%
14
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 58%
1.7%
15
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
16
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
17
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
18
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
19
Archives of Public Health
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
20
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
21
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
22
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
23
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
24
Biology of Sex Differences
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
25
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
26
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%