Performance of the measures of processes of care for adults and service providers in rehabilitation settings

Figures & data

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and internal consistency as assessed by Cronbach’s coefficient α of measure of processes of care for service providers working with adult clients domains

Domain (number of items) [N]	Mean (standard deviation)	Minimum–maximum	Internal consistency (Cronbach’s α)
Showing Interpersonal Sensitivity (10) [344]	5.1 (0.92)	2.4–7	0.88
Providing General Information (5) [329]	4.1 (1.36)	1–7	0.88
Communicating Specific Information (3) [368]	4.8 (1.17)	1.5–7	0.67*
Treating People Respectfully (9) [352]	5.6 (0.78)	3.1–7	0.87

Note:

* Spearman–Brown Coefficient 0.71.

Table 2 Loadings of factor analysis by measure of processes of care for service providers working with adult clients domains

Item#	Domains with corresponding items: In the past year, to what extent did you …	Factor loading: 27 items	Factor loading: four items removed
	A: Showing Interpersonal Sensitivity
1	Suggest treatment/management activities that fit with each patient’s and family’s needs and lifestyle?	0.641	0.644
2	Offer patients and families positive feedback or encouragement (eg, in carrying out a home program)?	0.664	0.666
3	Take the time to establish rapport with patients and families?	0.699	0.699
4	Discuss expectations for each patient with other service providers, to ensure consistency of thought and action?	0.639	0.659
5	Tell patients and families about options for services or treatments for their condition (eg, equipment, therapy)?	0.652	0.668
8	Discuss/explore each patient’s and family’s feelings about having a condition (eg, their worries about their health or function)?	0.504	0.510
9	Anticipate patients’ and families’ concerns by offering information even before they ask?	0.501	0.492
11	Let patients and families choose when to receive information and the type of information they wanted?	0.228*	Removed
12	Help each family to secure a stable relationship with at least one service provider who works with the patient over a long period of time?	0.371*	Removed
21	Help patients and families to feel competent in managing their own care?	0.355*	Removed
	B: Providing General Information
23	Promote family-to-family “connections” for social, informational, or shared experiences?	0.772	0.777
24	Provide support to help families cope with the impact of the chronic condition (eg, informing patients and families of assistance programs, or counseling how to work with other service providers)?	0.751	0.759
25	Provide advice on how to get information or to contact other patients (eg, through a community’s resource library, support groups, or the Internet)?	0.857	0.846
26	Provide opportunities for the entire family to obtain information?	0.701	0.715
27	Have general information available about different concerns (eg, financial costs or assistance, respite care)?	0.776	0.778
	C: Communicating Specific Information
14	Tell patients about the results from tests and/or assessments?	0.810	0.786
15	Provide patients with written information about their condition, progress, or treatment?	0.707	0.720
16	Tell patients and families details about their services, such as the types, reasons for, and durations of treatment/management?	0.670	0.703
	D: Treating People Respectfully
6	Accept patients and their family in a nonjudgmental way?	0.600	0.635
7	Trust patients as the “experts” on themselves?	0.591	0.591
10	Make sure patients and families had a chance to say what was important to them?	0.577	0.556
13	Answer patients’ and families’ questions completely?	0.384*	Removed
17	Treat each patient and their family as an individual rather than as a “typical” patient?	0.711	0.723
18	Treat patients as equals rather than just as a patient?	0.720	0.737
19	Make sure patients and families had opportunities to explain their treatment goals and needs (eg, for services or equipment)?	0.548	0.488
20	Help patients and families feel like a partner in their own care?	0.622	0.585
22	Treat patients and their families as people rather than as “cases” (eg, by not referring by diagnosis)?	0.684	0.700

Note:

* Items with larger loadings on other domains.

Table 3 Results of one-way analysis of variance and Tukey’s post hoc test demonstrating site differences (measure of processes of care for service providers working with adult clients)

Domain	Location 1	Location 2	Mean difference (Location 1,2)	Standard error	Significance	95% confidence interval
						Lower bound	Upper bound
Showing Interpersonal	Ontario	USA	0.18	0.14	0.392	−0.15	0.51
Sensitivity	Alberta	Ontario	0.15	0.19	0.71	−0.30	0.59
		USA	0.33	0.15	0.069	−0.02	0.67
Providing General	Ontario	USA	0.60*	0.20	0.009	0.12	1.07
Information	Alberta	Ontario	−0.25	0.27	0.625	−0.89	0.39
		USA	0.35	0.22	0.252	−0.17	0.86
Communicating	Ontario	USA	−0.11	0.16	0.753	−0.49	0.26
Specific Information	Alberta	Ontario	0.93*	0.24	0.001	0.37	1.5
		USA	0.82*	0.19	0.000	0.38	1.3
Treating People	Ontario	USA	0.11	0.11	0.626	−0.16	0.37
Respectfully	Alberta	Ontario	0.26	0.16	0.216	−0.11	0.63
		USA	0.37*	0.12	0.009	0.08	0.66

Note:

* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 4 Demographic characteristics of the measures of processes of care for adults responders

Age, mean (min–max) in years	63.7 (19–85)
Sex, n (%)
Male	25 (41)
Female	36 (59)
Main condition, n (%)
Stroke	45 (74)
Other	15 (24.6)
Length of stay (days) (min–max)	39.9 (14–140)
Health care professionals encountered, mean (min–max)	5 (3–7)
Family member, n (%)
Spouse	11 (70), 2 husbands
Child	2 (12.5)
Parent	1 (6)
Family member age, mean (min–max) in years	60.3 (45–69)

Abbreviations: max, maximum; min, minimum.

Table 5 Descriptive statistics and internal consistency as assessed by Cronbach’s coefficient α of measures of processes of care for adults domains

Domain name (number of items)	Patient responses (n =61)			Family responses (n =16)
	Mean (SD)	Min–max	Cronbach’s α	Mean (SD)	Min–max	Cronbach’s α
Enabling and Partnership (9)	5.51 (1.06)	2–7	0.82	5.1 (1.1)	2.67–6.56	0.92
Providing General Information (5)	4.72 (1.74)	1–7	0.85	4.25 (1.78)	1.8–7	0.87
Providing Specific Information (5)	4.03 (1.75)	1–7	0.85	4.2 (1.77)	1.4–6.8	0.91
Coordinated and Comprehensive Care (9)	5.78 (0.99)	3.5–7	0.89	5.58 (0.85)	4.11–6.89	0.94
Respectful and Supportive Care (6)	5.6 (0.93)	3.8–7	0.90	5.67 (0.98)	3.83–7	0.93
Global Satisfaction	27.87 (3.9)	16–32	0.89	27.13 (4)	22–32	0.89

Abbreviations: Max, maximum; Min, minimum; SD, standard deviation.

Table 6 Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients of measures of processes of care for adults domain scores with client satisfaction scores

Domain	Pearson coefficients (95% CI)		Interrater reliability (ICC) between patient and family member N=13 (95% CI)
	Patient global satisfaction	Family global satisfaction
Enabling and Partnership	0.51 (0.29–0.68)	0.65 (0.15–0.88)	0.50 (−0.33 to 0.80)
Providing General Information	0.52 (0.29–0.69)	0.62 (0.16–0.86)	0.81 (0.50–0.94)
Providing Specific Information	0.32 (0.05–0.54)	0.58 (0.07–0.85)	0.74 (0.40–0.90)
Coordinated and Comprehensive Care	0.67 (0.49–0.79)	0.78 (0.44–0.93)	0.41 (−0.10 to 0.80)
Respectful and Supportive Care	0.65 (0.47–0.78)	0.66 (0.18–0.89)	0.56 (−0.30 to 0.87)

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient.