A cross-sectional study adapts and tests a trauma patient experience questionnaire for valid Swedish use, indicating improved care insights.
Patients admitted to hospital due to trauma present with a multifaceted constellation of injuries, severity of injuries and comorbidities that require a complex and specialised somatic and psychological care system. Good care processes have been linked to better recovery and improved long-term health and health-related quality of life. There is both a knowledge gap around quality and safety of patient’s care following injury, as well as a lack of a validated questionnaire to systematically collect trauma patients’ experiences. The aim of this study was to translate, culturally adapt and determine the psychometric properties of the SF-QTAC-PREM acute care for use in a Swedish population of trauma patients. A prospective, cross-sectional study was performed in which patients at a Level 1 trauma centre in Sweden participated. Translation and adaptation was performed in accordance with the ISPOR and WHO guidelines, which generated a 22-item questionnaire. Thirty patients completed the test-retest, and a further 150 patients the psychometric testing. Reliability was established using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), and weighted Cohen’s Kappa coefficient, which showed a moderate to substantial agreement, and good reliability. The psychometric properties of the questionnaire using Exploratory Factor Analysis identified a two-factor solution with two stand-alone items. A good internal consistency was shown between factors using Cronbach’s alpha (0.85 Information and care, 0.84 Patient safety), concluding that the factors were not able to be combined. Spearman’s R correlation showed weak (0.31) and moderate (0.58) positive relationships between the items and global rating scale contributing to a good overall construct validity. The new Swedish SF-QTAC-PREM acute care exhibited above acceptable external reliability, good overall internal consistency and construct validity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mårtenson et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: