Measuring care transitions in Sweden: Validation of the care transitions measure

33Citations
Citations of this article
45Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: To translate and assess the validity and reliability of the original American Care Transitions Measure, both the 15-item and the shortened 3-item versions, in a sample of people in transition from hospital to home within Sweden. Design: Translation of survey items, evaluation of psychometric properties. Setting: Ten surgical and medical wards at five hospitals in Sweden. Participants: Patients discharged from surgical and medical wards. Main outcome measure: Psychometric properties of the Swedish versions of the 15-item (CTM-15) and the 3-item (CTM-3) Care Transition Measure. Results: We compared the fit of nine models among a sample of 194 Swedish patients. Cronbach's alpha was 0.946 for CTM-15 and 0.74 for CTM-3. The model indices for CTM-15 and CTM-3 were strongly indicative of inferior goodness-of-fit between the hypothesized one-factor model and the sample data. A multidimensional three-factor model revealed a better fit compared with CTM-15 and CTM-3 one factor models. The one-factor solution, representing 4 items (CTM-4), showed an acceptable fit of the data, and was far superior to the one-factor CTM-15 and CTM-3 and the three-factor multidimensional models. The Cronbach's alpha for CTM-4 was 0.85. Conclusions: CTM-15 with multidimensional three-factor model was a better model than both CTM-15 and CTM-3 one-factor models. CTM-4 is a valid and reliable measure of care transfer among patients in medical and surgical wards in Sweden. It seems the Swedish CTM is best represented by the short Swedish version (CTM-4) unidimensional construct.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Flink, M., Tessma, M., Småstuen, M. C., Lindblad, M., Coleman, E. A., & Ekstedt, M. (2018). Measuring care transitions in Sweden: Validation of the care transitions measure. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 30(4), 291–297. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzy001

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free