Skip to main content
Download PDF

Content validity of patient-reported measures evaluating experiences of the quality of transitions in healthcare settings—a scoping review

BMC Health Services Research volume 24, Article number: 828 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

No reviews so far have been conducted to define the constructs of patient-experienced quality in healthcare transitions or to identify existing generic measures of patients’ experience of the quality within healthcare transitions. Our aim was to identify domains relevant for people experiencing healthcare transitions when evaluating the quality of care they have received, map the comprehensiveness of existing patient-reported experience measures (PREM), and evaluate the PREMs’ content validity. The method was guided by the Joanna Briggs Institutes’ guidance for scoping reviews. The search was performed on 07 December 2021 and updated 27 May 2024, in the electronic databases Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and Cinahl (EBSCO). The search identified 20,422 publications, and 190 studies were included for review. We identified 30 PREMs assessing at least one aspect of adults’ experience of transitions in healthcare. Summarising the content, we consider a model with two domains, organisational and human-relational, likely to be adequate. However, a more comprehensive analysis and adequate definition of the construct is needed. None of the PREMs were considered content valid.

Peer Review reports

Background

Care management encompasses evaluating individuals' needs and coordinating healthcare services; however, patients struggle with consistency and clarity in care management [1]. Patients’ ability to navigate healthcare systems has implications for the outcome of their treatment [2, 3] such as functional ability [4], illness management [5], disease relapse [6], and quality of life [7], and patients experience navigation of healthcare services as burdensome [8]. Furthermore, healthcare structures which are difficult to navigate accentuate existing social inequlities in healthcare [9] and people with poor health literacy are at higher risk of poor quality of care in healthcare transitons [10,11,12]. Because patients’ experiences are associated with clinical effectiveness and safety [13], assessing patients’ experiences with transitions in healthcare is important in determining the quality of healthcare delivery. Patient-reported experience measures (PREM) are intended to be reliable measures of the quality of healthcare services from patients’ perspectives and may support evaluation of the effectiveness, safety, and efficiency of healthcare provision [14, 15]. However, validity and reliability criteria of PREMs are often indadequatly investigated before clinical application of the PREMs, potentially leading to issues of responsiveness when applied in clinical trials [16].

Several reviews of instruments measuring patient experience of quality in healthcare transitions have been published [17,18,19,20,21,22]. In the systematic review by Berbee et al. [23] they aimed to identify and select an appropriate instrument for measuring the quality of integrated care for patients experiencing chronic illness, but identified no patient-reported experience measure that was comprehensive or relevant according to focus group interviews with the patients [17]. Concordantly, in a systematic review for evaluating patient satisfaction in healthcare settings integrating behavioural and medical health services, Black et al. [18] found that no PREM comprehensively captured all relevant aspects of the integrated healthcare experience [18]. In contrast, Weaver et al. [19] reviewed concepts, models, and instruments for understanding care continuity in mental health services and suggested a PREM suitable for self-reporting experiences with mental healthcare [19]. In 2011 Fiscella et al. [20] published a consensus of domains and measures suitable for patient-reported assessment of cancer navigation but also called for an instrument that covered all relevant topics [20]. Likewise, McMurray et al. [21] identified 25 instruments to assess patients’ experience of rehabilitation services, but none comprehensively measured patient experience across the rehabilitative care continuum [21]. Following this, Quinn et al. [22] concluded that no instruments adequately assessed veterans’ experience with access and coordination across healthcare settings [22]. No reviews so far have identified a generic PREM that comprehensively measures patients’ experience with the quality of healthcare transitions [17,18,19,20,21,22, 24, 25]. Therefore, there is a need to identify adequate concepts and measures that can target patient experienced transitions in healthcare.

The “COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN)” initiative was founded by a group of reasearcher with a mission to improve the quality of measurement of health outcomes [26]. The COSMIN group argues that content validity is the most important aspect of patient-reported measures [27]. Content validity refers to a patient-reported measure's relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility [28]. In other words, to evaluate whether the instrument provides an adequate reflection of the construct to be measured in the context [27]. Although there is some consensus on defining patient experience of healthcare transitions as a multidimensional concept consisting of human-relational and system factors, the conceptualizations found in existing reviews still lack clarity [17,18,19,20,21,22, 24, 25].

The overall scope of this review was to explore and define domains of the concept of patient-experienced quality in cross-sectoral care for generic patient populations. Further, to map existing methods for generically assessing the quality of transitions in healthcare settings (e.g. between municipality, general practitioner, and hospital). To achieve this, our objectives were:

  1. 1.

    What domains are considered relevant to measure for patients’ experiencing healthcare transitions when evaluating the quality of care they have received?

  2. 2.

    What existing patient-reported experience measures attempt to measure patients’ experience of transitions in healthcare settings?

  3. 3.

    Are any existing patient-reported experience measures adequate (relevant and comprehensive) reflections of patients’ experience of transitions in healthcare settings?

Methods

The method of this scoping review followed the Joanna Briggs Institutes’ (JBI) guidance for scoping reviews [29]. The article was outlined following JBI guidelines [29] supported by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist [30]. A pre-registered protocol, including aims, search strategies, and amendments made during the iterative review process [29], is available via Open Science Framework (OSF) [31]. The research question was defined using the SPIDER-model (i.e., Setting, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research) [32]. The research question encompassed five concepts with predefined definitions and in- and exclusion criteria to ensure identification of eligible studies (Table 1).

Table 1 Research Question Defined by the SPIDERa-Model
Full size table

Search

The search was performed on 07 December 2021 and updated 27 May 2024. The electronic databases Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and Cinahl (EBSCO) were chosen because they cover multiple research areas within healthcare. The search was developed in Embase and translated to Medline and Cinahl as recommended [35]. For the phenomenon of interest, we identified the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) term “Patient Satisfaction”. Although we excluded studies reporting on patient satisfaction rather than patient experience, the terms have been used interchangeably, [21] and patient satisfaction thus seemed necessary to include in our search strategy. As the focus on patient's experiences of coherent care seemed to have emerged around late 1990 and early 2000, [36] we searched for literature from 2000. The search strategy was developed from the predefined definitions and criteria with guidance from research librarians. An example of the search can be seen in Table 2 (see full search strategy in Supplementary material 1).

Table 2 Example of search syntax
Full size table

Selection of sources of evidence

Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia) was used to manage the duplication and screening process [37]. All studies were screened by two independent reviewers, and a total of seven reviewers participated in the screening process. To ensure calibration of the screening process, a consensus meeting was arranged at the beginning of the process as in rapid reviews [38]. During the calibration sessions, in- and exclusion criteria were specified further than the a-priori defined criteria (Supplementary material 2).

In the full-text screening process, we experienced a larger number of articles than expected. In order to focus this review on the a priori defined aims, we decided to; I) report on intervention studies in an independent review, II) exclude mixed-methods studies and original qualitative studies, III) synthesize dimensions found in the included syntheses and reviews rather than report on the original studies. We decided to include syntheses and reviews because reports on qualitative studies were frequent, and relevant themes for patient-experienced quality of healthcare transitions had already been mapped in these meta-syntheses, integrative reviews, or scoping reviews.

Data charting process

A priori-defined data extraction templates were used and are available at OSF [39]. The data charting was done by one author (SW). The first 10 data extractions were validated independently by a research assistant (NH). The data charting table and process were adapted following the pilot extraction. The final data extraction tables are available in Supplementary materials 3 and 4.

Critical appraisal of individual sources of evidence

Although the JBI guidelines for scoping reviews do not warrant critical appraisal, [40] we critically appraised a selection of the most comprehensive PREMs according to the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures [27, 41, 42] to assess content validity [27] (relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility) from patients’ perspectives (See Supplementary material 5 for checklist). The critical assessment was done independently by two reviewers (SW, LM), and conflicts were discussed until a consensus was reached. When PREMs were mentioned in included publications but not available in the publication, references were followed to the original publications on that PREM.

Synthesis of results

We synthesized the data by; I) Summarizing themes identified in the qualitative syntheses and identifying relevant domains (Supplementary material 3 and Fig. 3); II) Identifying PREMs, assessing the PREMs phenomenon of interest, and categorizing and listing the items of the relevant PREMs to assess comprehensiveness (Supplementary materials 4, 6 and Table 3); III) Assessing the content validity of the most comprehensive PREMs (items related to five or more themes) (Table 3). The process of synthesizing data is also described in Fig. 1.

Table 3 Comprehensiveness and Content Validity of Existing PREMs for Assessment of Patients’ Experiences of the Quality of Transitions in Healthcare Settings
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Data Synthesis Process

Full size image

Results

The search identified 20,422 records (Fig. 2), and 190 reports were included after the screening and selection process (Fig. 2). Reviewers had 70%-93% agreement. In addition to the regular selection process, first author SW divided the reports according to objectives 1 (27 reports) and 2 (163 reports, 35 reports excluded during data extraction, leaving 128 reports for inclusion). This was done because the scientific methods for reports to answer objective 1 needed to be qualitative, and the methods relevant for answering objective 2 needed to be quantitative observational, development, or validation reports.

Fig. 2
figure 2

PRISMA Flowchart

Full size image

Relevant domains (Results for Objective 1)

For objective one, we included 27 reports (Supplementary material 7), [47, 92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117] which included: 10 (37%) systematic reviews, [47, 96, 98, 99, 102, 105, 107, 108, 110, 112] seven (26%) scoping reviews, [94, 100, 103, 109, 111, 114, 115] three (11%) meta syntheses, [92, 101, 113] three (11%) integrated reviews, [95, 97, 104] two (7%) narrative reviews, [117, 118] two (7%) qualitative reviews, [106, 116] that provided information on relevant domains and/or themes for assessing patients´ experiences with care across healthcare settings. The number of identified themes ranged from two [94] to 13, [111] with most articles reporting three themes [96, 101, 113, 114, 117]. When summarizing and describing themes from the included reports, we found that the themes could be organized in two distinct domains; I) A system/organizational domain; II) A human-relational domain. Each of these domains encompassed six themes; thus, we identified 12 relevant themes as illustrated in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Domains, Themes, and Items Relevant for Assessing Patients’ Experiences of Pathways Across Healthcare Settings

Full size image

The organizational domain included themes that had to do with delivery of healthcare services such as timeliness and efficiency [104, 106]. The human-relational domain was more about how services were delivered [107, 108]. We found that quality in care could not be measured without addressing concerns such as health care providers caring attitudes or respect for patient preferences and informational needs [95, 115, 116].

Existing patient-reported experience measures (Results for Objective 2)

For objective two, we included 128 [17,18,19,20,21,22, 24, 25, 43,44,45,46, 48, 50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91, 119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160, 160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191] (Supplementary material 7) reports that described 113 unique PREMs (Supplementary materials 4 and 6). However, 83 (73%) PREMs were excluded during data extraction as they referred to other aspects of care quality than transitions between healthcare settings or otherwise deviated from our specified phenomenon (Supplementary material 6). The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) [192,193,194,195] questionnaires were most frequently referred to, [17, 18, 20, 22, 81, 119, 121, 123] but we did not find the items relevant according to the construct definition in objective 1. The two relevant PREMs that were most frequently referred to were Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire [19, 24, 68,69,70,71,72, 172] and Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) [17, 22, 24, 75,76,77, 79, 196]. 

In the data extraction process, we identified different ways of formulating items. Some items were worded from a medical system perspective on quality i.e. “My physical pain was controlled as well as possible”, [197] whereas others were articulated from a patient-centred perspective i.e. “My treatment fits my needs” [43]. Yet, other items were specific to a certain contextual system infrastructure i.e. “The specialist makes out the first prescription for the treatment he/she prescribes me”, [44] or they were disease-specific [61]. However, we did identify PREMs with a more generic wording such as, “Were there times when you had to repeat information that should have been in your care records?” [198].

Adequate reflection of patients’ experience (results for objective 3)

We extracted 30 PREMs that pertained to patient-experience of quality of transitions in healthcare settings. To assess the relevance and comprehensiveness of the identified PREMs, the items of each PREM were plotted according to the 12 subthemes identified for objective 1 (Table 3). Twenty-two PREMs had items related to at least five of the 12 subthemes (Table 3). To focus our review on the most comprehensive PREMs, we critically appraised the selected 22 PREMs. The Alberta Continuity of Services Scale – Mental Health (ACSS-MH), [43] the Person-Centered Coordinated Care Experience Questionnaire (P3CEQ), [74] and the Patient Experience of Integrated Care Scale (PEICS) [84] had adequate content validity, however, they were disease-specific and/or did not have items in all themes identified in objective 1 (Table 3). The remaining 17 PREMs had doubtful or inadequate content validity. Despite P3CEQ and PEIC having been adequately tested for content validity we do not find them comprehensive according to our conceptualization of the construct (Objective 1) and thus not content valid.

Discussion

The overall aim of this scoping review was to define the concept of patient-experienced quality in healthcare transitions and map existing content valid PREMs relevant for measuring this concept. We found the construct of patient-reported experience of transitions in healthcare to consist of two domains – system/organization and human-relation. However, in summarizing the 27 qualitative reports for this review, we found some inconsistency and lack of clarity in the conceptualization and understanding of patient-experienced quality in healthcare transitions. Although some reports identified the construct of patient-experienced quality in healthcare transitions to consist of two main domains (organization and human-relational), [19, 20, 62, 102, 108, 115] others disagreed [95, 111] and leaned towards the Institute of Medicine’s framework for quality with five or more domains [36]. The two-dimensional model is, however, supported by both qualitative conceptualization [102, 108, 115] and testing of measurement properties, [19, 20, 62] whereas the Institute of Medicine’s framework is not. In addition to inconsistency in domains, there was a general inconsistency in the number and terminology for themes [94, 111] and formulation of items concerning patient-centeredness. [43, 197] As items in PREMs may be approached by respondents much the same as a dialogue, [199] we believe a person-centred approach to item formulation may provide the best opportunity for patients to assess quality of care appropriately. Several reports suggest further research into the conceptualization and understanding of patient-experience with care transitions [94, 98, 110, 118]. Due to the variations in how the construct is defined, assessing the content validity of current PREMs becomes challenging [27, 28]. Therefore, we support the suggestion of further research into the conceptualization of patient-experienced quality in healthcare transitions.

We identified 30 PREMs that reflected at least one relevant aspect of the construct but none that were comprehensive reflections of generic patient populations’ experiences of transitions in healthcare settings. This finding aligns with the conclusion of the included reviews of instruments [17,18,19,20,21,22, 24, 25, 62, 177]. It is surprising that we have not identified a content-valid PREM given the large number of reports (128) and unique PREMs (113) included. This may be associated with the lack of clarity in the construct of patient-experienced quality in healthcare transitions. In the future, a generic PREM should be developed to make cross-comparison between studies and healthcare organizations possible. A collective effort to test and use a generic PREM might also support further development and/or understanding of the construct. This, however, would entail a generic approach to item formulation, as seen in P3CEQ, [198] rather than a context-specific approach [44].

It may be a limitation in our study that our search was imprecise with the inclusion of patient satisfaction in the search terms. However, the sensitivity of our search originates from inclusion of patient satisfaction in the search terms, and we consider the strength of this sensitivity to out way the imprecision by securing a comprehensive review. The comprehensiveness of our search resulted in a large number of records to be reviewed, and thus many reviewers to accommodate for time constraints. We attempted to compensate for a potentially low inter-rater reliability with calibration meetings. Despite of this, the number of reviewers may have been a limitation to the inclusion of all relevant, and only relevant reports. Furthermore, our pragmatic decision of excluding original qualitative studies from this review could have been a limitation to the comprehensiveness of our results. Incorporating the 24 qualitative reports has sufficiently advanced our comprehension of the existing literature to address objective 1. This is corroborated by the absence of new themes identified during data extraction from recent reports. The data extraction performed primarily by one reviewer may have caused some imprecision. However, as we have identified more PREMs than the included reviews of instruments, [17,18,19,20,21,22, 24, 25, 62, 177] this does not seem to be the case. While our scoping review does exhibit certain limitations, the thoroughness of our search and the inclusive methodology employed in comprehending and evaluating patient-experienced quality during healthcare transitions have nonetheless generated novel and significant insights.

CTM [56, 200] and PACIC [196] are widely used measures of patient-experience of transitions in healthcare settings and Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire [70, 172] is often used for measurement of continuity. However, we found P3CEQ [73, 74], and PEICS [84] to have more adequately tested content validity for generic measurement of patient-experienced quality in healthcare transitions. With seventeen [73, 84] respectively twenty items for the questionnaires, we do not expect any one of them to be more challenging for participants to respond to. P3CEQ had been found to be difficult to use in an older population [164], but this is likely to be true true for both questionnaires. The questionnaires have some overlap in themes and some differences. As P3CEQ has been more thoroughly tested using item response theory methods [73, 74, 191] we recommend the use of P3CEQ if the questionnaire has face validity for the intended purpose. We do still find though, that some items relating to kindness in care [95] are missing and that neither P3CEQ nor PEICS are comprehensive measures of patient-experienced quality in healthcare transitions according to the conceptualizations we have identified.

In light of our findings, it is plausible that items extracted from the most relevant and comprehensive PREMs, with a focus on generic formulations for infrastructure and disease, would reflect the construct of patient-experienced quality in healthcare transitions adequately. Furthermore, as there is some consensus that quality healthcare transitions occur when organisational structures are flexible and sensitive to patient preferences, [96, 101,102,103,104, 107, 114] it seems advantageous to apply this knowledge in item extraction and/or formulation. As described, the construct seems to be unclear or imprecisely defined. Therefore, a process of extracting and/or formulating items should be undertaken systematically and iteratively with patient involvement and openness to re-evaluating the definition of the construct. A PREM revised by the outlined approach may support valid and reliable evaluation of the effectiveness, safety, and efficiency of healthcare provision.

With this scoping review we share an overview of available PREMs for assessment of patient- experienced quality of healthcare in pathways with transitions between settings. Our review may have implications for assessment of transitional care in the future, as we do not recommend continued use of CTM [56, 200]. Comprehensive and valid measurement of patients’ experiences is pivotal to securing high quality, safe healthcare for patients with complex disease [1, 201] and we would welcome a collaborative, international effort to define the construct and futher assess the existing PREMs or co-create a measure on the basis of the existing PREMs.

Conclusion

In the literature, we identified several conceptual models that referred to aspects of patients’ experience with the quality of healthcare transitions. We consider a model with two domains likely to be adequate, however, a more comprehensive analysis and adequate definition of the construct is needed.

Thirty PREMs assessing at least one aspect of patients’ experience of transitions in healthcare were identified. However, we did not consider any of the PREMs to be content valid to measure patient-experienced quality in healthcare transitions generically according to the conceptual models we identified. It is possible that items extracted from the identified questionnaires can be combined for a content-valid PREM. We call for further exploration into the construct of patient experience with healthcare transitions and testing of models to produce a content-valid PREM suitable for generic assessment of patients’ experiences with the quality of healthcare transitions.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Stewart A, MacIntyre G. Care management in the twenty-first centuryPersistent challenges in implementation in the context of the emergence of self-care. J Integr Care. 2013;21:91–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Freeman HP, Muth BJ, Kerner JF. Expanding access to cancer screening and clinical follow-up among the medically underserved. Cancer Pract. 1995;3:19–30.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Egan M, Anderson S, McTaggart J. Community navigation for stroke survivors and their care partners: description and evaluation. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2010;17:183–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Markle-Reid M, Fisher K, Walker KM, et al. The stroke transitional care intervention for older adults with stroke and multimorbidity: a multisite pragmatic randomized controlled trial. BMC Geriatr. 2023;23:687.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Nielsen JD, Palshof T, Mainz J, et al. Randomised controlled trial of a shared care programme for newly referred cancer patients: bridging the gap between general practice and hospital. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12:263–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Preen DB, Bailey BES, Wright A, et al. Effects of a multidisciplinary, post-discharge continuance of care intervention on quality of life, discharge satisfaction, and hospital length of stay: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Qual Health Care. 2005;17:43–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Smidth M, Olesen F, Fenger-Gron M, et al. Patient-experienced effect of an active implementation of a disease management programme for COPD - a randomised trial. BMC Fam Pract. 2013;14:147.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Walløe S, Beck M, Lauridsen HH, et al. Quality in care requires kindness and flexibility – a hermeneutic-phenomenological study of patients’ experiences from pathways including transitions across healthcare settings. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024;24:117.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Kvæl LA, Gautun H. Social inequality in navigating the healthcare maze: Care trajectories from hospital to home via intermediate care for older people in Norway. Soc Sci Med. 2023;333:116142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Adams RJ, Piantadosi C, Ettridge K, et al. Functional health literacy mediates the relationship between socio-economic status, perceptions and lifestyle behaviors related to cancer risk in an Australian population. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;91:206–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Friis K, Vind BD, Simmons RK, et al. The relationship between health literacy and health behaviour in people with diabetes: a Danish population-based study. J Diabetes Res. 2016;2016:e7823130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bo A, Friis K, Osborne RH, et al. National indicators of health literacy: ability to understand health information and to engage actively with healthcare providers - a population-based survey among Danish adults. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1095.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Doyle C, Lennox L, Bell D. A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e001570.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Weldring T, Smith SMS. Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Health Serv Insights. 2013;6:61–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Jamieson Gilmore K, Corazza I, Coletta L, et al. The uses of patient reported experience measures in health systems: a systematic narrative review. Health Policy. 2023;128:1–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bull C, Byrnes J, Hettiarachchi R, et al. A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient-reported experience measures. Health Serv Res. 2019;54:1023–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Vrijhoef HJM, Berbee R, Wagner EH, et al. Quality of integrated chronic care measured by patient survey: identification, selection and application of most appropriate instruments. Health Expect. 2009;12(4):417–29.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Black D, Held ML, Skeesick J, et al. Measures Evaluating Patient Satisfaction in Integrated Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review. Community Ment Health J. 2021;57:1464–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Weaver N, Coffey M, Hewitt J. Concepts, models and measurement of continuity of care in mental health services: A systematic appraisal of the literature. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2017;24:431–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Fiscella K, Ransom S, Jean-Pierre P, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures suitable to assessment of patient navigation. Cancer. 2011;117:3603–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. McMurray J, McNeil H, Lafortune C, et al. Measuring patients’ experience of rehabilitation services across the care continuum. Part I: a systematic review of the literature. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97:104–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Quinn M, Robinson C, Forman J, et al. Survey instruments to assess patient experiences with access and coordination across health care settings: available and needed measures. Med Care. 2017;55:S84–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Berbee R, Steuten LMG, Vrijhoef HJM, Wagner EH. Quality of integrated chronic care measured by patient survey: Identification, selection and application of most appropriate instruments. Health Expect. 2009;12(4):417–29.

  24. Fernandes S, Fond G, Zendjidjian XY, et al. Measuring the patient experience of mental health care: a systematic and critical review of patient-reported experience measures. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020;14:2147–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Perriman N, Davis D. Measuring maternal satisfaction with maternity care: a systematic integrative review. Women Birth. 2016;29:293–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. About the initiative • COSMIN. COSMIN. https://www.cosmin.nl/about/. Accessed 5 Jan 2024.

  27. Terwee CB, Prinsen CA, Chiarotto A, et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil. 2018;27:1159–70.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18:2119–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation | Annals of Internal Medicine. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M18-0850. Accessed 12 Jan 2023.

  31. Tang L, Skou ST, Nissen N, et al. The Exercise First Research Program. 2020. https://osf.io/v3ec5/ . Accessed 21 June 2023.

  32. The SPIDER Tool for Qualitative Evidence Synthesis | NCCMT.  https://www.nccmt.ca/knowledge-repositories/search/191 . Accessed 16 Jan 2023.

  33. Crow R, Gage H, Hampson S, et al. The measurement of satisfaction with healthcare: implications for practice from a systematic review of the literature. Health Technol Assess Winch Engl. 2002;6:1–244.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Bruster S, et al. Patients’ experiences and satisfaction with health care: results of a questionnaire study of specific aspects of care. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11:335–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Bramer WM, De Jonge GB, Rethlefsen ML, et al. A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and complete method to develop literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc; 106. Epub ahead of print 4 October 2018. https://doi.org/10.5195/JMLA.2018.283.

  36. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2001. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222274/. Accessed 23 Jan 2023.

  37. McKeown S, Mir ZM. Considerations for conducting systematic reviews: evaluating the performance of different methods for de-duplicating references. Syst Rev. 2021;10:38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews - ClinicalKey. https://www.clinicalkey.com/#!/content/playContent/1-s2.0-S089543562031146X?returnurl=https:%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS089543562031146X%3Fshowall%3Dtrue&referrer=https:%2F%2Fpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2F. Accessed 2 Mar 2022.

  39. Review_protocol_20220404.pdf. 2022. https://osf.io/https://osf.io/zwht4 . Accessed 21 June 2023.

  40. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, et al. Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evid Synth. 2022;20:953–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, et al. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil. 2018;27:1171–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil. 2018;27:1147–57.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Joyce AS, Adair CE, Wild TC, et al. Continuity of care: validation of a self-report measure to assess client perceptions of mental health service delivery. Community Ment Health J. 2010;46:192–208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Aller MB, Vargas I, Garcia I, et al. A tool for assessing continuity of care across care levels: an extended psychometric validation of the CCAENA questionnaire. Int J Integr Care. 13. Epub ahead of print 2 December 2013. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.1160.

  45. Vargas I, Waibel S, Vazquez ML, et al. A comprehensive analysis of patients’ perceptions of continuity of care and their associated factors. Int J Qual Health Care. 2013;25:291–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Karam M, Lambert A-S, Macq J. Patients’ perceptions of continuity of care across primary care level and emergency departments in Belgium: cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e033188.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. McMurray J, McNeil H, Lafortune C, et al. Measuring patients’ experience of rehabilitation services across the care continuum. Part II: key dimensions. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97:121–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Rose D, Sweeney A, Leese M, et al. Developing a user-generated measure of continuity of care: brief report. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2009;119:320–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Sweeney A, Rose D, Clement S, Jichi F, Jones IR, Burns T, m.fl. Understanding service user-defined continuity of care and its relationship to health and social measures: a cross-sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:145.

  50. McGuiness C, Sibthorpe B. Development and initial validation of a measure of coordination of health care. Int J Qual Health Care J Int Soc Qual Health Care. 2003;15:309–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Berendsen AJ, Groenier KH, de Jong GM, et al. Assessment of patient’s experiences across the interface between primary and secondary care: consumer quality index continuum of care. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;77:123–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Willems LM, Kwakkenbos L, Bode C, et al. Health care use and patients’ perceptions on quality of care in systemic sclerosis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2013;31:64–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Kollen BJ, Groenier KH, Berendsen AJ. Patients’ experiences with continuum of care across hospitals. A multilevel analysis of Consumer Quality Index Continuum of Care. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;83:269–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Acosta AM, Lima MADS, Marques GQ, et al. Brazilian version of the care transitions measure: translation and validation. Int Nurs Rev. 2017;64:379–87.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Bakshi AB, Wee SL, Tay C, et al. Validation of the care transition measure in multi-ethnic South-East Asia in Singapore. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:256.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Coleman EA, Mahoney E, Parry C. Assessing the quality of preparation for posthospital care from the patient’s perspective: the care transitions measure. Med Care. 2005;43:246–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Shadmi E, Zisberg A, Coleman EA. Translation and validation of the care transition measure into Hebrew and Arabic. Int J Qual Health Care J Int Soc Qual Health Care. 2009;21:97–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Mosallam RA, Metwally S. Patients’ views on the quality of transitional care at a health insurance hospital in Alexandria. Egypt J Egypt Public Health Assoc. 2014;89:74–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Hod R, Maimon O, Zimlichman E. Does Care Transition Matter? Exploring the Newly Published HCAHPS Measure. Am J Med Qual. 2020;35:380–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Dolovich LR, Nair KM, Ciliska DK, et al. The diabetes continuity of care scale: the development and initial evaluation of a questionnaire that measures continuity of care from the patient perspective. Health Soc Care Community. 2004;12:475–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Gulliford MC, Naithani S, Morgan M. Measuring continuity of care in diabetes mellitus: an experience-based measure. Ann Fam Med. 2006;4:548–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Fillion L, Cook S, Veillette A-M, et al. Professional navigation framework: elaboration and validation in a Canadian context. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2012;39(1):E58–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Hadjistavropoulos HD, Biem HJ, Kowalyk KM. Measurement of continuity of care in cardiac patients: reliability and validity of an in-person questionnaire. Can J Cardiol. 2004;20:883–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Hadjistavropoulos H, Biem H, Sharpe D, et al. Patient perceptions of hospital discharge: reliability and validity of a patient continuity of care questionnaire. Int J Qual Health Care. 2008;20:314–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Kowalyk KM, Hadjistavropoulos HD, Biem HJ. Measuring continuity of care for cardiac patients: development of a patient self-report questionnaire. Can J Cardiol. 2004;20:205–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Valaker I, Fridlund B, Wentzel-Larsen T, et al. Adaptation and psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the heart continuity of care questionnaire (HCCQ). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19:62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Riley DL, Stewart DE, Grace SL. Continuity of cardiac care: cardiac rehabilitation participation and other correlates. Int J Cardiol. 2007;119:326–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Cohen Castel O, Dagan E, Keinan-Boker L, et al. Reliability and validity of the Hebrew version of the Nijmegen continuity questionnaire for measuring patients’ perceived continuity of care in oral anticancer therapy. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2018;27:e12913.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Hetlevik Ø, Hustoft M, Uijen A, et al. Patient perspectives on continuity of care: adaption and preliminary psychometric assessment of a Norwegian version of the Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire (NCQ-N). BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):760.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Uijen AA, Schers HJ, Schellevis FG, et al. Measuring continuity of care: psychometric properties of the Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire. Br J Gen Pract J R Coll Gen Pract. 2012;62:e949–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Hopstaken JS, van Dalen D, van der Kolk BM, et al. Continuity of care experienced by patients in a multi-institutional pancreatic care network: a pilot study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Den Herder-van Der Eerden M, Ebenau A, Payne S, et al. Integrated palliative care networks from the perspectives of patients: a cross-sectional explorative study in five European countries. Palliat Med. 2018;32:1103–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Lloyd H, Fosh B, Whalley B, et al. Validation of the person-centred coordinated care experience questionnaire (P3CEQ). Int J Qual Health Care. 2019;31:506–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Sugavanam T, Fosh B, Close J, et al. Codesigning a measure of person-centred coordinated care to capture the experience of the patient: the development of the P3CEQ. J Patient Exp. 2018;5:201–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Drewes HW, de Jong-van Til JT, Struijs JN, et al. Measuring chronic care management experience of patients with diabetes: PACIC and PACIC+ validation. Int J Integr Care. 2012;12:e194.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Glasgow RE, Wagner EH, Schaefer J, et al. Development and validation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC). Med Care. 2005;43:436–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Cramm JM, Nieboer AP. High-quality chronic care delivery improves experiences of chronically ill patients receiving care. Int J Qual Health Care. 2013;25:689–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Carryer J, Doolan-Noble F, Gauld R, et al. New Zealand patients’ perceptions of chronic care delivery. J Integr Care. 2014;22:71–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Bower P, Reeves D, Sutton M, et al. Improving care for older people with long-term conditions and social care needs in Salford: the CLASSIC mixed-methods study, including RCT. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2018;6:1–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Ljungholm L, Årestedt K, Fagerström C, et al. Measuring patients’ experiences of continuity of care in a primary care context-development and evaluation of a patient-reported experience measure. J Adv Nurs. 2024;80:387–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. O’Malley AS, Cunningham PJ. Patient experiences with coordination of care: the benefit of continuity and primary care physician as referral source. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24:170–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Sisler JJ, Taylor-Brown J, Nugent Z, et al. Continuity of care of colorectal cancer survivors at the end of treatment: the oncology–primary care interface. J Cancer Surviv. 2012;6:468–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Carneiro C, Ellis J, Singh S, et al. Patient and primary care practitioner confidence in and perceptions of cancer treatment transition and the shared care model of cancer care. J Oncol Navig Surviv. 2016;7:18–24.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Joober H, Chouinard MC, King J, et al. The patient experience of integrated care scale: a validation study among patients with chronic conditions seen in primary care. Int J Integr Care. 2018;18:1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Haggerty JL, Roberge D, Freeman GK, et al. Validation of a generic measure of continuity of care: when patients encounter several clinicians. Ann Fam Med. 2012;10(5):443–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Tremblay D, Roberge D, Touati N, et al. Effects of interdisciplinary teamwork on patient-reported experience of cancer care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:218.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Breton M, Haggerty J, Roberge D, et al. Management continuity in local health networks. Int J Integr Care. 12. Epub ahead of print 13 April 2012. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.682.

  88. Kiang MV, Singer SJ, Friedberg MW, et al. Development and preliminary validation of the patient perceptions of integrated care survey. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70:143–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Mohr DC, Benzer JK, Vimalananda VG, et al. Organizational Coordination and Patient Experiences of Specialty Care Integration. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:30–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Fryer AK, Friedberg MW, Thompson RW, et al. Achieving care integration from the patients’ perspective: results from a care management program. Healthcare. 2016;4:36–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Benzer JK, Singer SJ, Mohr DC, et al. Survey of patient-centered coordination of care for diabetes with cardiovascular and mental health comorbidities in the department of veterans affairs. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:43–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Allen J, Hutchinson AM, Brown R, et al. User experience and care for older people transitioning from hospital to home: Patients’ and carers’ perspectives. Health Expect Int J Public Particip Health Care Health Policy. 2018;21:518–27.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Instituto Nacional de Cancerología E.S.E, Arias Rojas M, García-Vivar C, et al. The transition of palliative care from the hospital to the home: a narrative review of experiences of patients and family caretakers. Investig Educ En Enferm. 33. Epub ahead of print 15 October 2015. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.iee.v33n3a12.

  94. Asif M, Cadel L, Kuluski K, et al. Patient and caregiver experiences on care transitions for adults with a hip fracture: a scoping review. Disabil Rehabil. 2020;42:3549–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Beattie M, Shepherd A, Howieson B. Do the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM’s) dimensions of quality capture the current meaning of quality in health care? – An integrative review. J Res Nurs. 2013;18:288–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Boye LK, Mogensen CB, Mechlenborg T, et al. Older multimorbid patients’ experiences on integration of services: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19:795.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Carpenter JG. Hospital palliative care teams and post-acute care in nursing facilities: an integrative review. Res Gerontol Nurs. 2017;10:25–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Davidson L, Scott J, Forster N. Patient experiences of integrated care within the United Kingdom: a systematic review. Int J Care Coord. 2021;24:39–56.

    Google Scholar 

  99. De Regge M, De Pourcq K, Meijboom B, et al. The role of hospitals in bridging the care continuum: a systematic review of coordination of care and follow-up for adults with chronic conditions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:550.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Foglino S, Bravi F, Carretta E, et al. The relationship between integrated care and cancer patient experience: A scoping review of the evidence. Health Policy. 2016;120:55–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Hestevik CH, Molin M, Debesay J, et al. Older persons’ experiences of adapting to daily life at home after hospital discharge: a qualitative metasummary. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19:224.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Hohmann NS, McDaniel CC, Mason SW, et al. Patient perspectives on primary care and oncology care coordination in the context of multiple chronic conditions: A systematic review. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2020;16:1003–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Lawless MT, Marshall A, Mittinty MM, et al. What does integrated care mean from an older person’s perspective? A scoping review. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e035157.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Mayo SJ, Ajaj R, Drury A. Survivors’ preferences for the organization and delivery of supportive care after treatment: An integrative review. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2021;54:102040.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Oishi A, Murtagh FE. The challenges of uncertainty and interprofessional collaboration in palliative care for non-cancer patients in the community: A systematic review of views from patients, carers and health-care professionals. Palliat Med. 2014;28:1081–98.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. Piccenna L, Lannin NA, Gruen R, et al. The experience of discharge for patients with an acquired brain injury from the inpatient to the community setting: a qualitative review. Brain Inj. 2016;30:241–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Sampson R, Cooper J, Barbour R, et al. Patients’ perspectives on the medical primary–secondary care interface: systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e008708.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Scholl I, Zill JM, Härter M, et al. An integrative model of patient-centeredness – a systematic review and concept analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9:e107828.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Segan JD, Briggs AM, Chou L, et al. Patient-perceived health service needs in inflammatory arthritis: a systematic scoping review. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2018;47:765–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Sibounheuang P, Olson PS, Kittiboonyakun P. Patients’ and healthcare providers’ perspectives on diabetes management: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2020;16:854–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Staniszewska S, Boardman F, Gunn L, et al. The Warwick patient experiences framework: patient-based evidence in clinical guidelines. Int J Qual Health Care. 2014;26:151–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. van Servellen G, Fongwa M, Mockus DE. Continuity of care and quality care outcomes for people experiencing chronic conditions: a literature review. Nurs Health Sci. 2006;8:185–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Waibel S, Henao D, Aller M-B, et al. What do we know about patients’ perceptions of continuity of care? A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. Int J Qual Health Care. 2012;24:39–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Youssef A, Chaudhary ZK, Wiljer D, et al. Mapping evidence of patients’ experiences in integrated care: a scoping review. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2019;61:1–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Djukanovic I, Hellström A, Wolke A, et al. The meaning of continuity of care from the perspective of older people with complex care needs–a scoping review. Geriatr Nur (Lond). 2024;55:354–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Joo JY, Liu MF. The experience of chronic illness transitional care: a qualitative systematic review. Clin Nurs Res. 2022;31:163–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Sanjida S, Garvey G, Ward J, et al. Indigenous Australians’ experiences of cancer care: a narrative literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19:16947.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. Arias Rojas M, García-Vivar C. The transition of palliative care from the hospital to the home: a narrative review of experiences of patients and family caretakers. Investig Educ En Enfermeria. 2015;33:482–91.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Wells R, Breckenridge ED, Siañez M, et al. Self-Reported Quality, Health, and Cost-Related Outcomes of Care Coordination Among Patients with Complex Health Needs. Popul Health Manag. 2020;23:59–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Weinberg DB, Gittell JH, Lusenhop RW, et al. Beyond our walls: impact of patient and provider coordination across the continuum on outcomes for surgical patients. Health Serv Res. 2007;42:7–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  121. Sequist TD, Von Glahn T, Li A, et al. Measuring chronic care delivery: patient experiences and clinical performance. Int J Qual Health Care. 2012;24:206–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Noel PH, Barnard JM, Barry FM, et al. Patient experience of health care system hassles: dual-system vs single-system users. Health Serv Res. 2020;55:548–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  123. Mollica MA, Buckenmaier SS, Halpern MT, et al. Perceptions of care coordination among older adult cancer survivors: a SEER-CAHPS study. J Geriatr Oncol. 2021;12:446–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  124. Kessing LV, Hansen HV, Ruggeri M, et al. Satisfaction with treatment among patients with depressive and bipolar disorders. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2006;41:148–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Ireson CL, Scutchfield FD, Slavova S, et al. Bridgingf the care continuum: patient information needs for specialist referrals. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:163.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. Hincapie AL, Slack M, Malone DC, et al. Relationship between patients’ perceptions of care quality and health care errors in 11 countries: a secondary data analysis. Qual Manag Health Care. 2016;25:13–21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. Guilabert M, Martínez-García A, Sala-González M, et al. Results of a Patient Reported Experience Measure (PREM) to measure the rare disease patients and caregivers experience: a Spanish cross-sectional study. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2021;16:67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  128. Collett GK, Durcinoska I, Rankin NM, et al. Patients’ experience of lung cancer care coordination: a quantitative exploration. Support Care Cancer. 2019;27:485–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Burgers JS, Voerman GE, Grol R, et al. Quality and coordination of care for patients with multiple conditions: results from an international survey of patient experience. Eval Health Prof. 2010;33:343–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Bravi F, Ruscio ED, Frassoldati A, et al. Patient and health care professional perspectives: a case study of the lung cancer integrated care pathway. Int J Integr Care. 2018;18:7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  131. Bortoli A, Daperno M, Kohn A, et al. Patient and physician views on the quality of care in inflammatory bowel disease: Results from SOLUTION-1, a prospective IG-IBD study. J Crohns Colitis. 2014;8:1642–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Boele F, Harley C, Pini S, et al. Cancer as a chronic illness: support needs and experiences. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2019;14(e1):bmjspcare-2019–001882.

  133. Bentler SE, Morgan RO, Virnig BA, et al. The association of longitudinal and interpersonal continuity of care with emergency department use, hospitalization, and mortality among medicare beneficiaries. PLoS One. 2014;9:e115088.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  134. Auerbach AD, Kripalani S, Vasilevskis EE, et al. Preventability and causes of readmissions in a national cohort of general medicine patients. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176:484.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  135. Andrew NE, Busingye D, Lannin NA, et al. The quality of discharge care planning in acute stroke care: influencing factors and association with postdischarge outcomes. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2018;27:583–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Alsayali MM, AlSharif K, Al-Sahafi A, et al. Patients’ satisfaction after primary health care centers’ integration with Ministry of Health Hospitals. Jeddah J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2019;9:135–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Aller MB, Vargas I, Waibel S, et al. Factors associated to experienced continuity of care between primary and outpatient secondary care in the Catalan public healthcare system. Gac Sanit. 2013;27:207–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Badri MA, Attia ST, Ustadi AM. Testing not-so-obvious models of healthcare quality. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2008;21:159–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Bentler SE, Morgan RO, Virnig BA, et al. Do claims-based continuity of care measures reflect the patient perspective? Med Care Res Rev MCRR. 2014;71:156–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Bentler SE, Morgan RO, Virnig BA, et al. Evaluation of a patient-reported continuity of care model for older adults. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:185–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Bull MJ, Luo D, Maruyama GM. Measuring continuity of elders’ posthospital care. J Nurs Meas. 2000;8:41–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  142. Castle N, Engberg J, Men A. Satisfaction of discharged nursing home residents. J Appl Gerontol Off J South Gerontol Soc. 2018;37:1225–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  143. Chavez LM, Canino G, Shrout PE, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Spanish version of CONNECT: a measure of continuity of care in mental health services. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2007;16:23–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  144. Clark K, Beatty S, Reibel T. Maternity-care: measuring women’s perceptions. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2016;29:89–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. Crump H, King J, Graham C, et al. Developing a User Reported Measure of Care Co-ordination. Int J Integr Care. 2017;17:4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  146. Eubank BH, Lafave MR, Mohtadi NG, et al. Validation of a tool to assess patient satisfaction, waiting times, healthcare utilization, and cost. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2019;20:e47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  147. Fulton BR, Sternke EA, Ayala L, et al. Psychometric testing of a measure of patient experience in an ambulatory surgery setting. J Ambulatory Care Manage. 2019;42:27–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. Graumlich JF, Novotny NL, Aldag JC. Brief scale measuring patient preparedness for hospital discharge to home: psychometric properties. J Hosp Med. 2008;3:446–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  149. Haggerty JL, Burge F, Pineault R, et al. Management continuity from the patient perspective: comparison of primary healthcare evaluation instruments. Healthc Policy. 2011;7:139–53.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  150. Husain A, Barbera L, Howell D, et al. Advanced lung cancer patients’ experience with continuity of care and supportive care needs. Support Care Cancer Off J Multinatl Assoc Support Care Cancer. 2013;21:1351–8.

    Google Scholar 

  151. Hwang JI, Chung JH, Kim HK. Psychometric properties of transitional care instruments and their relationships with health literacy: Brief prepared and care transitions measure. Int J Qual Health Care. 2019;31:774–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. Ignatyev Y, Timm J, Heinze M, et al. Development and preliminary validation of the scale for evaluation of psychiatric integrative and continuous care-patient’s version. Front Psychiatry. 2017;8:162.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  153. Liu L-M, Liu M-T, Sun M-J, et al. Validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the partners at care transitions measure. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:1284.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  154. Malik N, Alvaro C, Kuluski K, et al. Measuring patient satisfaction in complex continuing care/rehabilitation care. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2016;29:324–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. Masters S, Giles L, Halbert J, et al. Development and testing of a questionnaire to measure older people’s experience of the transition care program in Australia. Australas J Ageing. 2010;29:172–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  156. McAlister FA, Lin M, Bakal J, et al. The care transitions measure-3 is only weakly associated with post-discharge outcomes: a retrospective cohort study in 48,384 Albertans. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:2497–504.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  157. Mira JJ, Nuno-Solinis R, Guilabert-Mora M, et al. Development and validation of an instrument for assessing patient experience of chronic illness care. Int J Integr Care. 2016;16:13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  158. Noest S, Ludt S, Klingenberg A, et al. Involving patients in detecting quality gaps in a fragmented healthcare system: development of a questionnaire for Patients’ Experiences Across Health Care Sectors (PEACS). Int J Qual Health Care. 2014;26:240–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  159. Oikonomou E, Page B, Lawton R, et al. Validation of the Partners at Care Transitions Measure (PACT-M): assessing the quality and safety of care transitions for older people in the UK. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20:608.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  160. Parra-Vega I, Marques-Sanchez P, Pelayo-Teran JM, et al. Development and validation of a questionnaire for assessing patients’ perceptions of interprofessional integration in health care. J Interprof Care. 2022;36(4):538-44.

  161. Peabody M, Bradley KD, Custer M. Assessing the validity of a continuum-of-care survey: a rasch measurement approach. J Appl Meas. 2016;17:1–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  162. Radwin LE, Cabral HJ, Seibert MN, et al. Patient-centered care in primary care scale: Pilot development and psychometric assessment. J Nurs Care Qual. 2019;34:34–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  163. Ramond-Roquin A, Stewart M, Ryan BL, et al. The ‘patient-centered coordination by a care team’ questionnaire achieves satisfactory validity and reliability. J Interprof Care. 2019;33:558–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  164. Reynolds J, Gadsby E, Rijken M, et al. Measuring older peoples’ experiences of person-centred coordinated care: experience and methodological reflections from applying a patient reported experience measure in SUSTAIN. Int J Integr Care. 2021;21:1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  165. Rucci P, Foglino S, Bravi F, et al. Validation of the OPportunity for Treatment In ONcology (OPTION) questionnaire measuring continuity of care. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 27. Epub ahead of print 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12765.

  166. Smith LFP. Postnatal care: development of a psychometric multidimensional satisfaction questionnaire (the WOMBPNSQ) to assess women’s views. Br J Gen Pract. 2011;61:e628–37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  167. Soares JB, Nogueira MC, Fernandes D, et al. Validation of the Portuguese version of a questionnaire to measure Quality of Care Through the Eyes of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (QUOTE-IBD). Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;27:1409–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  168. Sorra J, Zebrak K, Carpenter D, et al. Development and psychometric properties of surveys to assess patient and family caregiver experience with care transitions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:785.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  169. Squitieri L, Tsangaris E, Klassen AF, et al. Patient-reported experience measures are essential to improving quality of care for chronic wounds: an international qualitative study. Int Wound J. 2020;17:1052–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  170. Teale EA, Young JB. A Patient Reported Experience Measure (PREM) for use by older people in community services. Age Ageing. 2015;44:667–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  171. Thompson R, Stevens G, Elwyn G. Measuring patient experiences of integration in health care delivery: psychometric validation of IntegRATE under controlled conditions. J Patient Exp. 2021;8:23743735211007344.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  172. Uijen A, Schellevis F, Bosch W, et al. Nijmegen continuity questionnaire: development and testing of a questionnaire that measures continuity of care. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1391–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  173. van Melle MA, van Stel HF, Poldervaart JM, et al. The transitional risk and incident questionnaire was valid and reliable for measuring transitional patient safety from the patients’ perspective. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;105:40–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  174. Walker KO, Stewart AL, Grumbach K. Development of a survey instrument to measure patient experience of integrated care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:193.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  175. Ware NC, Dickey B, Tugenberg T, et al. CONNECT: a measure of continuity of care in mental health services. Ment Health Serv Res. 2003;5:209–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  176. Young JM, Walsh J, Butow PN, et al. Measuring cancer care coordination: development and validation of a questionnaire for patients. BMC Cancer. 2011;11:298.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  177. Schick-Makaroff K, Karimi-Dehkordi M, Cuthbertson L, et al. Using patient- and family-reported outcome and experience measures across transitions of care for frail older adults living at home: a meta-narrative synthesis. Gerontologist. 2020;61:e23–38.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  178. Volakakis N, Pylli M, Raftopoulos V, et al. Exploration of the factors that influence perceived quality of patient centered care among cancer survivors: a systematic review. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2024;68:102503.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  179. Yoshimura M, Sumi N. Measurement tools that assess the quality of transitional care from patients’ perspective: a literature review. Jpn J Nurs Sci. 2022;19:e12472.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  180. Van Roij J, Raijmakers N, Ham L, et al. Quality of life and quality of care as experienced by patients with advanced cancer and their relatives: a multicentre observational cohort study (eQuiPe). Eur J Cancer. 2022;165:125–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  181. Liu LM, Zhuansun MY, Xu TY, et al. Measuring the quality of transitional care based on elderly patients’ experiences with the partners at care transitions measure: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Nurs. 2024;23:172.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  182. Chen CC, Cheng SH. Reexamining the association of care continuity and health care outcomes. Am J Manag Care. 2023;29:e242–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  183. Arnold C, Hennrich P, Wensing M. Patient-reported continuity of care and the association with patient experience of cardiovascular prevention: an observational study in Germany. BMC Prim Care. 2022;23:176.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  184. Kim SK, Hwang YS, Ock M, et al. Development of items for transitional care service and outcome indicators of discharged patients for improvement in quality of care. J Korean Med Sci. 2023;38:e246.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  185. Seo AR, Kim BK, Park KS. Psychometric properties and effects on health outcomes of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) in Korean hemodialysis patients. Healthcare. 2022;10:1149.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  186. Hennrich P, Arnold C, Koetsenruijter J, et al. Measuring continuity of ambulatory cardiovascular care: a cross-sectional study on the applicability of the Nijmegen continuity questionnaire in Germany. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22:1258.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  187. Boyer L, Fernandes S, Brousse Y, et al. Development of the PREMIUM computerized adaptive testing for measuring the access and care coordination for patients with severe mental illness. Psychiatry Res. 2023;328:115444.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  188. Sollid MIV, Slaaen M, Danielsen S, et al. Psychometric properties of the person-centred coordinated care experience questionnaire (P3CEQ) in a Norwegian radiotherapy setting. Int J Qual Health Care J Int Soc Qual Health Care. 2022;34:mzac067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  189. Vimalananda VG, Meterko M, Sitter KE, et al. Patients’ experience of specialty care coordination: survey development and validation. J Patient-Centered Res Rev. 2023;10:219–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  190. Rosenlund L, Jakobsson S, Lloyd H, et al. Measuring patient experiences of person-centred care: translation, cultural adaption and qualitative evaluation of item candidates for use in England and Sweden. Scand J Caring Sci. 2022;36:235–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  191. Rijken M, Close J, Menting J, et al. Assessing the experience of person-centred coordinated care of people with chronic conditions in the Netherlands: Validation of the Dutch P3CEQ. Health Expect. 2022;25:1069–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  192. Hargraves JL, Hays RD, Cleary PD. Psychometric properties of the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) 2.0 adult core survey. Health Serv Res. 2003;38:1509–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  193. Platonova EA, Saunders WB, Warren-Findlow J, et al. Patient perceptions of patient-centered medical home characteristics and satisfaction with free clinic services. Popul Health Manag. 2016;19:324–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  194. Dyer N, Sorra JS, Smith SA, et al. Psychometric properties of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) clinician and group adult visit survey. Med Care. 2012;50 Suppl:S28-34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  195. Hays RD, Berman LJ, Kanter MH, et al. Evaluating the psychometric properties of the CAHPS Patient-centered Medical Home survey. Clin Ther. 2014;36:689-696.e1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  196. Gensichen J, Serras A, Paulitsch MA, et al. The patient assessment of chronic illness care questionnaire: evaluation in patients with mental disorders in primary care. Community Ment Health J. 2011;47:447–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  197. Cott CA, Teare G, McGilton KS, et al. Reliability and construct validity of the client-centred rehabilitation questionnaire. Disabil Rehabil. 2006;28:1387–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  198. Lloyd H, Jenkinson C, Hadi M, et al. Patient reports of the outcomes of treatment: a structured review of approaches. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  199. Ash MG, Sturm T, editors. Psychology’s territories: historical and contemporary perspectives from different disciplines. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  200. Coleman EA, Smith JD, Frank JC, et al. Development and testing of a measure designed to assess the quality of care transitions. Int J Integr Care. 2002;2:e02.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  201. WHO. WHO global strategy on people-centred and integrated health services. WHO. https://www.who.int/servicedeliverysafety/areas/people-centred-care/global-strategy/en/. Accessed 3 May 2021.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Mette Kring Clausen and Olga Alexandrovna Tchijevitch for reviewing identified literature.

Funding

Open access funding provided by University of Southern Denmark The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, or publication of this article: This work was supported by the local research fund at Næstved, Slagelse, and Ringsted hospitals; by a program grant for Exercise First from Region Zealand; and a faculty scholarship from Department of Clinical Research at University of Southern Denmark.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Research, Research Unit OPEN, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

    Sisse Walløe, Sebrina Maj-Britt Hansen, Christoffer Bruun Korfitsen & Lars Morsø

  2. Department of Physio- and Occupational Therapy, Research- and Implmentation Unit PROgrez, Næstved-Slagelse-Ringsted Hospitals, Region Zealand, Denmark

    Sisse Walløe, Stine Gundtoft Roikjær, Graziella Zangger, Sofie Rath Mortensen & Charlotte Simonÿ

  3. Department of Neurology, Center for Neurological Research, Næstved-Slagelse-Ringsted Hospitals, Region Zealand, Denmark

    Stine Gundtoft Roikjær

  4. Department of Health, Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

    Stine Gundtoft Roikjær & Charlotte Simonÿ

  5. Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, Research Unit for Musculoskeletal Function and Physiotherapy, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

    Graziella Zangger

  6. Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, Research Unit for Exercise Epidemiology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

    Sofie Rath Mortensen

  7. Department of Clinical Research, Cochrane Denmark & Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO), University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

    Christoffer Bruun Korfitsen

  8. Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

    Henrik Hein Lauridsen

Authors
  1. Sisse Walløe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stine Gundtoft Roikjær
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sebrina Maj-Britt Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Graziella Zangger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sofie Rath Mortensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christoffer Bruun Korfitsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Charlotte Simonÿ
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Henrik Hein Lauridsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Lars Morsø
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SW devised the systematic search and review process, contributed substantially to the data extraction and mapping process, and revised the manuscript critically. SGR contributed substantially to the devision of the systematic search and review process, and revised the manuscript critically. SMH contributed substantially to the devision of the search and screening process and revised the manuscript critically. GZ and SRM contributed substantially to the review process and revised the manuscript critically. CBK contributed substantially to the data extraction and mapping process and with critical revision of the manuscript. CS, HHL, and LM made substantial contributions to conceptualisation, the systematic search and review process, the data extraction and mapping process, and critically revised the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sisse Walløe.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Walløe, S., Roikjær, S.G., Hansen, S.MB. et al. Content validity of patient-reported measures evaluating experiences of the quality of transitions in healthcare settings—a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res 24, 828 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11298-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11298-0

Keywords

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us