Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Feb 3;2(1):e000692.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000692. Print 2012.

Detecting and measuring deprivation in primary care: development, reliability and validity of a self-reported questionnaire: the DiPCare-Q

Paul Vaucher  1 , Thomas Bischoff, Esther-Amélie Diserens, Lilli Herzig, Giovanna Meystre-Agustoni, Francesco Panese, Bernard Favrat, Catherine Sass, Patrick Bodenmann
Affiliations

Detecting and measuring deprivation in primary care: development, reliability and validity of a self-reported questionnaire: the DiPCare-Q

Paul Vaucher et al. BMJ Open. .

Erratum in

  • Correction.
    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] BMJ Open. 2012 Jul 19;2(4):e000692corr1. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000692corr1. Print 2012. BMJ Open. 2012. PMID: 22815463 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

Abstract

Objectives: Advances in biopsychosocial science have underlined the importance of taking social history and life course perspective into consideration in primary care. For both clinical and research purposes, this study aims to develop and validate a standardised instrument measuring both material and social deprivation at an individual level.

Methods: We identified relevant potential questions regarding deprivation using a systematic review, structured interviews, focus group interviews and a think-aloud approach. Item response theory analysis was then used to reduce the length of the 38-item questionnaire and derive the deprivation in primary care questionnaire (DiPCare-Q) index using data obtained from a random sample of 200 patients during their planned visits to an ambulatory general internal medicine clinic. Patients completed the questionnaire a second time over the phone 3 days later to enable us to assess reliability. Content validity of the DiPCare-Q was then assessed by 17 general practitioners. Psychometric properties and validity of the final instrument were investigated in a second set of patients. The DiPCare-Q was administered to a random sample of 1898 patients attending one of 47 different private primary care practices in western Switzerland along with questions on subjective social status, education, source of income, welfare status and subjective poverty.

Results: Deprivation was defined in three distinct dimensions: material (eight items), social (five items) and health deprivation (three items). Item consistency was high in both the derivation (Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR20) =0.827) and the validation set (KR20 =0.778). The DiPCare-Q index was reliable (interclass correlation coefficients=0.847) and was correlated to subjective social status (r(s)=-0.539).

Conclusion: The DiPCare-Q is a rapid, reliable and validated instrument that may prove useful for measuring both material and social deprivation in primary care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart giving reasons for refusals and dropouts. (A) Derivation study, (B) validation study. N, number of patients; CRF, case report form.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Calculation table for the DiPCare-Q index ranging from 0 to 5 using subindexes corresponding to material, social and health deprivation.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Marmot M, Friel S, Bell R, et al. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Lancet 2008;372:1661–9 - PubMed
    1. Ansari Z, Carson NJ, Ackland MJ, et al. A public health model of the social determinants of health. Soz Praventivmed 2003;48:242–51 - PubMed
    1. Feinstein JS. The relationship between socioeconomic status and health: a review of the literature. Milbank Q 1993;71:279–322 - PubMed
    1. Egan M, Tannahill C, Petticrew M, et al. Psychosocial risk factors in home and community settings and their associations with population health and health inequalities: a systematic meta-review. BMC Public Health 2008;8:239. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Singh-Manoux A, Adler NE, Marmot MG. Subjective social status: its determinants and its association with measures of ill-health in the Whitehall II study. Soc Sci Med 2003;56:1321–33 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources