A noncontributory pension program for older persons in Yucatan, Mexico : implementing and designing the evaluation of the program in Valladolid /

Includes bibliographical references (pages 31-33).Online resource; title from PDF title page (JSTOR, viewed October 3, 2014).JSTO

Curbing Teen Dating Violence: Evidence from a School Prevention Program

This research brief summarizes a survey about the effectiveness of programs from Break the Cycle, a nonprofit organization dedicated to developing and fielding dating-violence prevention programs

Evaluating the Accuracy of 2020 Census Block-Level Estimates in California

In this study, we provide an assessment of data accuracy from the 2020 Census. We compare block-level population totals from a sample of 173 census blocks in California across three sources: (1) the 2020 Census, which has been infused with error to protect respondent confidentiality; (2) the California Neighborhoods Count, the first independent enumeration survey of census blocks; and (3) projections based on the 2010 Census and subsequent American Community Surveys. We find that, on average, total population counts provided by the U.S. Census Bureau at the block level for the 2020 Census are not biased in any consistent direction. However, subpopulation totals defined by age, race, and ethnicity are highly variable. Additionally, we find that inconsistencies across the three sources are amplified in large blocks defined in terms of land area or by total housing units, blocks in suburban areas, and blocks that lack broadband access

Development and evaluation of the CAHPS (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) survey for in-center hemodialysis patients.

BackgroundThe US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services assess patient experiences of care as part of the end-stage renal disease prospective payment system and Quality Incentive Program. This article describes the development and evaluation of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) In-Center Hemodialysis Survey.Study designWe conducted formative research to generate survey questions and performed statistical analyses to evaluate the survey's measurement properties.Setting & participantsFormative research included focus groups, cognitive interviews, and field testing the survey with dialysis patients.Measurements & outcomesWe assessed internal consistency reliability (Cronbach alpha) and center-level reliability for 3 multi-item scales. We evaluated construct validity using correlations of the scales with global ratings of the kidney doctor, staff, and dialysis center.ResultsResponse rate was 46% (1,454 completed surveys). Analyses support 3 multi-item scales: Nephrologists' Communication and Caring (7 items, alpha=0.89), Quality of Dialysis Center Care and Operations (22 items, alpha=0.93), and Providing Information to Patients (11 items, alpha=0.75). The communication scale was correlated the most strongly with the global rating of the "kidney doctor" (r=0.78). The Dialysis Center Care and Operations scale was correlated most strongly with global ratings of staff (r=0.75) and the center (r=0.69). Providing Information to Patients was correlated most strongly with the global rating of the staff (r=0.41).LimitationsA relatively small number of patients completed the survey in Spanish.ConclusionsThis study provides support for the reliability and validity of the CAHPS In-Center Hemodialysis Survey for assessing patient experiences of care at dialysis facilities. The survey can be used to compare care provided at different facilities

Development and evaluation of the CAHPS (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) survey for in-center hemodialysis patients.

BackgroundThe US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services assess patient experiences of care as part of the end-stage renal disease prospective payment system and Quality Incentive Program. This article describes the development and evaluation of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) In-Center Hemodialysis Survey.Study designWe conducted formative research to generate survey questions and performed statistical analyses to evaluate the survey's measurement properties.Setting & participantsFormative research included focus groups, cognitive interviews, and field testing the survey with dialysis patients.Measurements & outcomesWe assessed internal consistency reliability (Cronbach alpha) and center-level reliability for 3 multi-item scales. We evaluated construct validity using correlations of the scales with global ratings of the kidney doctor, staff, and dialysis center.ResultsResponse rate was 46% (1,454 completed surveys). Analyses support 3 multi-item scales: Nephrologists' Communication and Caring (7 items, alpha=0.89), Quality of Dialysis Center Care and Operations (22 items, alpha=0.93), and Providing Information to Patients (11 items, alpha=0.75). The communication scale was correlated the most strongly with the global rating of the "kidney doctor" (r=0.78). The Dialysis Center Care and Operations scale was correlated most strongly with global ratings of staff (r=0.75) and the center (r=0.69). Providing Information to Patients was correlated most strongly with the global rating of the staff (r=0.41).LimitationsA relatively small number of patients completed the survey in Spanish.ConclusionsThis study provides support for the reliability and validity of the CAHPS In-Center Hemodialysis Survey for assessing patient experiences of care at dialysis facilities. The survey can be used to compare care provided at different facilities

Development and Evaluation of the CAHPS (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) Survey for In-Center Hemodialysis Patients

BackgroundThe US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services assess patient experiences of care as part of the end-stage renal disease prospective payment system and Quality Incentive Program. This article describes the development and evaluation of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) In-Center Hemodialysis Survey.Study designWe conducted formative research to generate survey questions and performed statistical analyses to evaluate the survey's measurement properties.Setting & participantsFormative research included focus groups, cognitive interviews, and field testing the survey with dialysis patients.Measurements & outcomesWe assessed internal consistency reliability (Cronbach alpha) and center-level reliability for 3 multi-item scales. We evaluated construct validity using correlations of the scales with global ratings of the kidney doctor, staff, and dialysis center.ResultsResponse rate was 46% (1,454 completed surveys). Analyses support 3 multi-item scales: Nephrologists' Communication and Caring (7 items, alpha=0.89), Quality of Dialysis Center Care and Operations (22 items, alpha=0.93), and Providing Information to Patients (11 items, alpha=0.75). The communication scale was correlated the most strongly with the global rating of the "kidney doctor" (r=0.78). The Dialysis Center Care and Operations scale was correlated most strongly with global ratings of staff (r=0.75) and the center (r=0.69). Providing Information to Patients was correlated most strongly with the global rating of the staff (r=0.41).LimitationsA relatively small number of patients completed the survey in Spanish.ConclusionsThis study provides support for the reliability and validity of the CAHPS In-Center Hemodialysis Survey for assessing patient experiences of care at dialysis facilities. The survey can be used to compare care provided at different facilities