Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) in Type 2 Diabetes: A Longitudinal Study

被引:25
作者
Aung, Eindra [1 ]
Ostini, Remo [1 ]
Dower, Jo [1 ]
Donald, Maria [2 ]
Coll, Joseph R. [1 ]
Williams, Gail M. [1 ]
Doi, Suhail A. R. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Queensland, Sch Populat Hlth, Level 2,Publ Hlth Bldg,Herston Rd, Brisbane, Qld 4006, Australia
[2] Univ Queensland, Sch Med, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia
关键词
PACIC; psychometrics; patient perspectives; quality assessment; self-management support; SYSTEM; VALIDATION; OUTCOMES; QUALITY; VERSION; MODEL;
D O I
10.1177/0163278714556674
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) was designed to measure care congruent with several elements of the chronic care model (CCM), including self-management support and delivery system design. However, support for the a priori 5-subscale structure of the PACIC in previous research has been conflicting. Thus, we aim to investigate psychometric characteristics of the PACIC including the content and stability of its construct over time. A population-based prospective cohort study of patients with type 2 diabetes was conducted in Queensland, Australia, from 2008 (N = 3,761) to 2010 (N = 3,040). Participants completed annually the 20-item PACIC as well as measures of providers' adherence to guideline-recommended self-management support activities. We used exploratory factor analysis to determine its factor structure and examined internal consistency as well as agreement between the PACIC at baseline with repeated measurements at follow-up after 1 and 2 years. We also determined a criterion-related validity using multinomial logistic regression to explore PACIC's association with providers' self-management support. A one-factor structure was deemed optimal according to our findings. High internal consistency and moderate agreement within the scales over time were observed. Higher PACIC scores predicted better providers' self-management support. In conclusion, the PACIC is a reliable, valid, and reproducible instrument for assessment of diabetes care, and we recommend its promotion and use as a single scale rather than subscales as originally proposed.
引用
收藏
页码:185 / 203
页数:19
相关论文
共 41 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], DIAB MAN GEN PRACT G
[2]  
Aragones Abraham, 2008, Prev Chronic Dis, V5, pA113
[3]  
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2009, DIABETES SER
[4]   Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness - The chronic care model, part 2 [J].
Bodenheimer, T ;
Wagner, EH ;
Grumbach, K .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2002, 288 (15) :1909-1914
[5]  
Bodenheimer Thomas, 2003, Dis Manag, V6, P63, DOI 10.1089/109350703321908441
[6]   The increasing importance of patient surveys [J].
Cleary, PD .
QUALITY IN HEALTH CARE, 1999, 8 (04) :212-212
[7]   Evidence On The Chronic Care Model In The New Millennium [J].
Coleman, Katie ;
Austin, Brian T. ;
Brach, Cindy ;
Wagner, Edward H. .
HEALTH AFFAIRS, 2009, 28 (01) :75-85
[8]   Factorial validation of the patient assessment of chronic illness care (PACIC) and PACIC short version (PACIC-S) among cardiovascular disease patients in the Netherlands [J].
Cramm, Jane Murray ;
Nieboer, Anna Petra .
HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE OUTCOMES, 2012, 10
[9]   Assessing generalisability through the use of disease registers: findings from a diabetes cohort study [J].
David, Michael ;
Ware, Robert ;
Donald, Maria ;
Alati, Rosa .
BMJ OPEN, 2011, 1 (01)
[10]   Living with diabetes: rationale, study design and baseline characteristics for an Australian prospective cohort study [J].
Donald, Maria ;
Dower, Jo ;
Ware, Robert ;
Mukandi, Bryan ;
Parekh, Sanjoti ;
Bain, Christopher .
BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, 2012, 12