The Patients Assessment Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) questionnaire in The Netherlands: a validation study in rural general practice.
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Many patients with chronic illness receive health care in primary care settings, so a challenge is to provide well-structured chronic care in these settings. Our aim was to develop and test a Dutch version of the PACIC questionnaire, a measure for patient reported structured chronic care. METHODS: Observational study in 165 patients with diabetes or COPD from four general practices (72% response rate). Patients completed a written questionnaire, which included instruments for assessing chronic illness care (PACIC), evaluations of general practice (Europep), enablement (PEI), and individual characteristics. RESULTS: The patients had a mean age of 68.0 years and 47% comprised of women. Twenty-two to 35% of responding patients did not provide answers to specific items in the PACIC. In 11 items the lowest answering category was used by 30% or more of the responders and in 6 items the highest answering category was used by this number of responders. Principal factor analysis identified the previously defined five domains reasonably well. Cronbach's alpha per domain varied from 0.71 to 0.83, and the intraclass coefficient from 0.66 to 0.91. Diabetes patients reported higher presence of structured chronic care for 14 out of the 20 PACIC items. The effect of patient evaluations of general practice on the PACIC score was positive (b = 0.72, p < 0.004), but the effect of patient enablement on the PACIC score was negative (b = -1.13, p < 0.000). CONCLUSION: A translated and validated Dutch version of the PACIC questionnaire is now available. Further research on its validity is recommended.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>The number of patients with chronic illness is increasing worldwide. These patients usually receive care from a primary care facility. The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) is a tool that is increasingly used in several countries to measure how the patients perceive the care they receive. The goal of this validation study is to provide and validate an extended version of the tool, the PACIC+ questionnaire, in Thailand.<h4>Methods</h4>In this observational validation study, patients with type 2 diabetes from the outpatient clinic at a university hospital in Thailand completed the PACIC+ at the clinic. For follow-up, they received the questionnaire per mail after four weeks. The Thai PACIC+ comprises 26 items, which map onto 5 subscales and a summary score related to the Chronic Care Model (CCM) and 5 subscales and a summary score related to the 5A model, a counseling model for behavioral changes. Data-analysis focused on the use of most extreme answering categories (>?15%), internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), and test-retest reliability. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed for the CCM and the 5A model separately to examine the factor structure.<h4>Results</h4>A total of 151 patients participated. The average age of the sample was 63?±?9 years (range 29-86 years). Fifty-three percent of the respondents were female. In the Delivery System subscale, 20% of patients reported the highest possible value; in all other subscales, relative frequencies of the most extreme categories did not exceed 15%. Cronbach's alpha per subscale varied from 0.58 to 0.81, while that of the summary scores were 0.89 and 0.91. The mean difference from the test-retest varied from -?0.06 to 0.17 across subscales. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin criterion for sampling adequacy (KMO) was good for both models as well as the Bartlett's test for sphericity p. While the factor loadings in rotated factor solution showed good concordance with the CCM, concordance was not as good for the 5A model, especially for the subscales "Assess" and "Advice".<h4>Conclusion</h4>A validated Thai version of the PACIC+ is now available to measure how the patients perceive the care they receive.
Project description:BACKGROUND: Primary care for chronic illness varies across European healthcare systems. In patients suffering from coronary heart disease (CHD), factors associated with patients' experiences of receiving structured chronic care and counselling at the patient and practice level were investigated. METHODS: In an observational study comprising 140 general practices from five European countries (Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom), 30 patients with Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) per practice were chosen at random to partake in this research. Patients were provided with a questionnaire and the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC-5A) - instrument. Practice characteristics were assessed through a practice questionnaire and face to face interviews. Data were aggregated to obtain two practice scores representing quality management and CHD care, respectively. A hierarchical multilevel analysis was performed to examine the impact of patient and practice characteristics on PACIC scores. RESULTS: The final sample included 1745 CHD-patients from 131 general practices with a mean age of 67.8 (SD 9.9) years. The overall PACIC score was 2.84 (95%CI: 2.79; 2.89) and the 5A score reflecting structured lifestyle counselling was 2.75 (95% CI: 2.69; 2.79). At the patient level, male gender, more frequent practice contact and fewer related or unrelated conditions were associated with higher PACIC scores. At the practice level, performance scores reflecting quality management (p = 0.013) and CHD care (p = 0.009) were associated with improved assessment of the structured chronic care and counselling received. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' perceived quality of care varies. However, good practice management and organisation of care were positively reflected in patients' assessments of receiving structured chronic illness care. This highlights the importance of integrating patient experiences into quality measurements to provide feedback to health care professionals.
Project description:RATIONALE:Aims and Objective: The validation study of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) questionnaire suggested a 5-factor structure determined a priori, but subsequent analyses have questioned the validity of the original factor structure. This study analyzed the factor structure of the PACIC using a large and diverse patient sample, and evaluated the identified factors through the lens of recent transformational initiatives in primary care. METHODS:Convenience samples of adults completed surveys in waiting rooms during clinic visits. Primary care patients with 1 or more chronic illnesses with complete PACIC responses at baseline from 39 clinics (n=1,567) and at follow-up from 36 clinics (n=1,536) participated. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on baseline and follow-up patient questionnaire data from a cluster randomized controlled trial. Identified factors were evaluated in terms of item loadings, content, reliability, and the extent to which items reflected advances in the delivery of chronic illness care. RESULTS:Analyses supported the use of the PACIC summary score. Although a 5-factor model was retained, factor loadings were different from the original PACIC validation study. All factors had sufficient reliability, but findings suggested potential revisions to enhance the factor structure. CONCLUSIONS:It may be time to revise the PACIC to enhance the stability of the subscales (factors) and better reflect recent transformations in the delivery of chronic illness care.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Providing patient-centered care (PCC) during the last year of life (LYOL) can be challenging due to the complexity of the patients' medical, social and psychological needs, especially in case of chronic illnesses. Assessing PCC can be helpful in identifying areas for improvements. Since not all patients can be surveyed, a questionnaire for proxy informants was developed in order to retrospectively assess patient-centeredness in care during the whole LYOL. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and validity of an adapted version of the German Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) for surveying bereaved persons in order to assess PCC during the decedents' LYOL. METHODS:The German PACIC short form (11 items) was adapted to a nine-item version for surveying bereaved persons on the decedent's LYOL (PACIC-S9-Proxy). Items were rated on a five-point Likert scale. The PACIC adaptation and validation was part of a cross-sectional survey in the region of Cologne. Participants were recruited through self-selection and active recruitment by practice partners. Sociodemographic characteristics and missing data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted in order to assess the structure of the PACIC-S9-Proxy. Internal consistency was estimated using Cronbach's alpha. RESULTS:Of the 351 informants who participated in the survey, 230 (65.52%) considered their decedent to have suffered from chronic illness prior to death. 193 of these informants (83.91%) completed ?5 items of the questionnaire and were included in the analysis. The least answered item was item (74.09%) was item 4 (encouragement to group & classes for coping). The most frequently answered item (96.89%) was item 2 (satisfaction with care organization). Informants rated the item" Given a copy of their treatment plan" highest (mean 3.96), whereas "encouragement to get to a specific group or class to cope with the condition" (mean 1.74) was rated lowest. Cronbach's alpha was 0.84. A unidimensional structure of the questionnaire was found (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin 0.86, Bartlett's test for sphericity p?<?0.001), with items' factor loadings ranging from 0.46 to 0.82. CONCLUSIONS:The nine-item questionnaire can be used as efficient tool for assessing PCC during the LYOL retrospectively and by proxies. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register ( DRKS00011925 ) on 13 June 2017.
Project description:BACKGROUND:As the worldwide prevalence of chronic illness increases so too does the demand for novel treatments to improve chronic illness care. Quantifying improvement in chronic illness care from the patient perspective relies on the use of validated patient-reported outcome measures. In this analysis we examine the psychometric and scaling properties of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) questionnaire for use in the United Kingdom by applying scale data to the non-parametric Mokken double monotonicity model. METHODS:Data from 1849 patients with long-term conditions in the UK who completed the 20-item PACIC were analysed using Mokken analysis. A three-stage analysis examined the questionnaire's scalability, monotonicity and item ordering. An automated item selection procedure was used to assess the factor structure of the scale. Analysis was conducted in an 'evaluation' dataset (n?=?956) and results were confirmed using an independent 'validation' (n?=?890) dataset. RESULTS:Automated item selection procedures suggested that the 20 items represented a single underlying trait representing "patient assessment of chronic illness care": this contrasts with the multiple domains originally proposed. Six items violated invariant item ordering and were removed. The final 13-item scale had no further issues in either the evaluation or validation samples, including excellent scalability (Ho?=?.50) and reliability (Rho?=?.88). CONCLUSIONS:Following some modification, the 13-items of the PACIC were successfully fitted to the non-parametric Mokken model. These items have psychometrically robust and produce a single ordinal summary score. This score will be useful for clinicians or researchers to assess the quality of chronic illness care from the patient's perspective.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Transplant recipients are chronically ill patients, who require lifelong follow-up to manage co-morbidities and prevent graft loss. This necessitates a system of care that is congruent with the Chronic Care Model. The eleven-item self-report Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) scale assesses whether chronic care is congruent with the Chronic Care Model, yet its validity for heart transplant patients has not been tested. METHODS:We tested the validity of the English version of the PACIC, and compared the similarity of the internal structure of the PACIC across English-speaking countries (USA, Canada, Australia and United Kingdom) and across six languages (French, German, Dutch, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese). This was done using data from the cross-sectional international BRIGHT study that included 1378 heart transplant patients from eleven countries across 4 continents. To test the validity of the instrument, confirmatory factor analyses to check the expected unidimensional internal structure, and relations to other variables, were performed. RESULTS:Main analyses confirmed the validity of the English PACIC version for heart transplant patients. Exploratory analyses across English-speaking countries and languages also confirmed the single factorial dimension, except in Italian and Spanish. CONCLUSION:This scale could help healthcare providers monitor level of chronic illness management and improve transplantation care. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT01608477, first patient enrolled in March 2012, registered retrospectively: May 30, 2012.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Little is known as to whether primary care teams' perceptions of how well they have implemented the Chronic Care Model (CCM) corresponds with their patients' own experience of chronic illness care. We examined the extent to which practice members' perceptions of how well they organized to deliver care consistent with the CCM were associated with their patients' perceptions of the chronic illness care they have received. METHODS:Analysis of baseline measures from a cluster randomized controlled trial testing a practice facilitation intervention to implement the CCM in small, community-based primary care practices. All practice "members" (i.e., physician providers, non-physician providers, and staff) completed the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) survey and adult patients with 1 or more chronic illnesses completed the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) questionnaire. RESULTS:Two sets of hierarchical linear regression models accounting for nesting of practice members (N = 283) and patients (N = 1,769) within 39 practices assessed the association between practice member perspectives of CCM implementation (ACIC scores) and patients' perspectives of CCM (PACIC). ACIC summary score was not significantly associated with PACIC summary score or most of PACIC subscale scores, but four of the ACIC subscales [Self-management Support (p < 0.05); Community Linkages (p < 0.02), Delivery System Design (p < 0.02), and Organizational Support (p < 0.02)] were consistently associated with PACIC summary score and the majority of PACIC subscale scores after controlling for patient characteristics. The magnitude of the coefficients, however, indicates that the level of association is weak. CONCLUSIONS:The ACIC and PACIC scales appear to provide complementary and relatively unique assessments of how well clinical services are aligned with the CCM. Our findings underscore the importance of assessing both patient and practice member perspectives when evaluating quality of chronic illness care. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT00482768.
Project description:BACKGROUND:The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC-5A) was developed to assess the satisfaction with patient-provider interaction based on the Chronic Care Model. The additional 5A approach (assess, advise, agree, assist, arrange) allows to score behavioral counseling. The aim of the study was to assess the psychometric properties of the German adaptation of the PACIC-5A questionnaire in a sample of general practitioners (GP) patients with obesity. METHODS:Analyses were based on data from the study "Five A's counseling in weight management of obese patients in primary care: a cluster randomized controlled trial (INTERACT)". Data were collected via standardized questionnaires containing the 26-item version of the PACIC-5A questionnaire. A total of 117 patients with obesity were included in the analyses. Statistical procedures comprised descriptive analyses, the calculation of Cronbach's alpha, test-retest analyses and factor analyses in order to assess the psychometric properties including reliability and validity of the PACIC-5A. RESULTS:The patient's mean age was 43.4?years and the sample was mostly female (59%). Middle educational level was found for the majority (78%) and the mean Body Mass Index was 38.9?kg/m2. Descriptive analyses revealed a mean PACIC score of 2.33 and 5A sum score of 2.29. Notable floor effects were found. PACIC-5A showed high level of internal consistency (Cronbach's alphas >?0.9) and exploratory factor analyses resulted in a unidimensional structure. CONCLUSION:The results of this study provide evidence regarding the psychometric properties of the German version of the PACIC-5A used in a sample of GP patients with obesity and make an important contribution to the reliable and valid assessment of the patient-GP interaction with regard to obesity counseling in primary care.
Project description:Homeopathy research has focused on chronic conditions; however, the extent to which current homeopathic care is compliant with the Chronic Care Model (CCM) has been sparsely shown. As the Bengali Patient-Assessed Chronic Illness Care (PACIC)-20 was not available, the English questionnaire was translated and evaluated in a government homeopathic hospital in West Bengal, India. The translation was done in six steps, and approved by an expert committee. Face validity was tested by 15 people for comprehension. Test/retest reliability (reproducibility) was tested on 30 patients with chronic conditions. Internal consistency was tested in 377 patients suffering from various chronic conditions. The questionnaire showed acceptable test/retest reliability [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.57-0.75; positive to strong positive correlations; p < 0.0001] for all domains and the total score, strong internal consistency (Cronbach's ? = 0.86 overall and 0.65-0.82 for individual subscales), and large responsiveness (1.11). The overall mean score percentage seemed to be moderate at 69.5 ± 8.8%. Gender and presence of chronic conditions did not seem to vary significantly with PACIC-20 subscale scores (p > 0.05); however, monthly household income had a significant influence (p < 0.05) on the subscales except for "delivery system or practice design." Overall, chronic illness care appeared to be quite promising and CCM-compliant. The psychometric properties of the Bengali PACIC-20 were satisfactory, rendering it a valid and reliable instrument for assessing chronic illness care among the patients attending a homeopathic hospital.
Project description:<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate the long term effectiveness of integrated disease management delivered in primary care on quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) compared with usual care.<h4>Design</h4>24 month, multicentre, pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial<h4>Setting</h4>40 general practices in the western part of the Netherlands<h4>Participants</h4>Patients with COPD according to GOLD (Global Initiative for COPD) criteria. Exclusion criteria were terminal illness, cognitive impairment, alcohol or drug misuse, and inability to fill in Dutch questionnaires. Practices were included if they were willing to create a multidisciplinary COPD team.<h4>Intervention</h4>General practitioners, practice nurses, and specialised physiotherapists in the intervention group received a two day training course on incorporating integrated disease management in practice, including early recognition of exacerbations and self management, smoking cessation, physiotherapeutic reactivation, optimal diagnosis, and drug adherence. Additionally, the course served as a network platform and collaborating healthcare providers designed an individual practice plan to integrate integrated disease management into daily practice. The control group continued usual care (based on international guidelines).<h4>Main outcome measures</h4>The primary outcome was difference in health status at 12 months, measured by the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ); quality of life, Medical Research Council dyspnoea, exacerbation related outcomes, self management, physical activity, and level of integrated care (PACIC) were also assessed as secondary outcomes.<h4>Results</h4>Of a total of 1086 patients from 40 clusters, 20 practices (554 patients) were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 20 clusters (532 patients) to the usual care group. No difference was seen between groups in the CCQ at 12 months (mean difference -0.01, 95% confidence interval -0.10 to 0.08; P=0.8). After 12 months, no differences were seen in secondary outcomes between groups, except for the PACIC domain "follow-up/coordination" (indicating improved integration of care) and proportion of physically active patients. Exacerbation rates as well as number of days in hospital did not differ between groups. After 24 months, no differences were seen in outcomes, except for the PACIC follow-up/coordination domain.<h4>Conclusion</h4>In this pragmatic study, an integrated disease management approach delivered in primary care showed no additional benefit compared with usual care, except improved level of integrated care and a self reported higher degree of daily activities. The contradictory findings to earlier positive studies could be explained by differences between interventions (provider versus patient targeted), selective reporting of positive trials, or little room for improvement in the already well developed Dutch healthcare system.<h4>Trial registration</h4>Netherlands Trial Register NTR2268.