title: Comprehensiveness of care from the patient perspective: comparison of primary healthcare evaluation instruments.
abstract: Comprehensiveness relates both to scope of services offered and to a whole-person clinical approach. Comprehensive services are defined as "the provision, either directly or indirectly, of a full range of services to meet most patients' healthcare needs"; whole-person care is "the extent to which a provider elicits and considers the physical, emotional and social aspects of a patient's health and considers the community context in their care." Among instruments that evaluate primary healthcare, two had subscales that mapped to comprehensive services and to the community component of whole-person care: the Primary Care Assessment Tool - Short Form (PCAT-S) and the Components of Primary Care Index (CPCI, a limited measure of whole-person care).
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To examine how well comprehensiveness is captured in validated instruments that evaluate primary healthcare from the patient's perspective.
  
  
  METHODS
  645 adults with at least one healthcare contact in the previous 12 months responded to six instruments that evaluate primary healthcare. Scores were normalized for descriptive comparison. Exploratory and confirmatory (structural equation modelling) factor analysis examined fit to operational definition, and item response theory analysis examined item performance on common constructs.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Over one-quarter of respondents had missing responses on services offered or doctor's knowledge of the community. The subscales did not load on a single factor; comprehensive services and community orientation were examined separately. The community orientation subscales did not perform satisfactorily. The three comprehensive services subscales fit very modestly onto two factors: (1) most healthcare needs (from one provider) (CPCI Comprehensive Care, PCAT-S First-Contact Utilization) and (2) range of services (PCAT-S Comprehensive Services Available). Individual item performance revealed several problems.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Measurement of comprehensiveness is problematic, making this attribute a priority for measure development. Range of services offered is best obtained from providers. Whole-person care is not addressed as a separate construct, but some dimensions are covered by attributes such as interpersonal communication and relational continuity.
authors.affiliation: Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC.
authors.forename: Jeannie L
authors.initials: JL
authors.lastname: Haggerty
authors.forename: Marie-Dominique
authors.initials: MD
authors.lastname: Beaulieu
authors.forename: Raynald
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Pineault
authors.forename: Frederick
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Burge
authors.forename: Jean-Frédéric
authors.initials: JF
authors.lastname: Lévesque
authors.forename: Darcy A
authors.initials: DA
authors.lastname: Santor
authors.forename: Fatima
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Bouharaoui
authors.forename: Christine
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Beaulieu