Dataset Information

The validity, reliability, sensitivity and responsiveness of a modified Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI-2) as a tool for serial measurements of health enablement.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patient enablement is a core tenet of patient-centred and holistic primary care. The Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) is a transitional measure limited in its ability to measure changes over time. A modified version, PEI-2, has been developed to measure enablement at a given time-point without comparison to a recalled baseline.

Objective

To assess the validity, reliability, sensitivity and responsiveness of PEI-2.

Methods

PEI-2 was modified from the Chinese PEI to assess enablement over 4 weeks in a prospective cohort study nested within a community support programme [Trekkers Family Enhancement Scheme (TFES)] in Hong Kong. Construct validity was assessed by factor analysis and convergent validity by Spearman's correlations with health-related quality of life and depressive symptoms. Internal reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Test-retest reliability was assessed by intraclass correlation (ICC), responsiveness by 12-24-month change in PEI-2 score and sensitivity by differences in change of PEI-2 score between TFES participants and a control group.

Results

PEI-2 demonstrated construct validity with all items loading on one factor (factor loadings >0.7). Convergent validity was confirmed by significant correlations with 12-item Short Form Questionnaire, version 2 (r = 0.1089-0.1919) and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (r = -0.2030). Internal reliability was high (Cronbach's alpha = 0.9095) and test-retest reliability moderate (ICC = 0.520, P = 0.506). Significant improvements in PEI-2 scores among the TFES group suggested good responsiveness (P < 0.001). The difference in change of PEI-2 scores between TFES and control was significant (P = 0.008), indicating good sensitivity.

Conclusions

This study supports the validity, reliability, sensitivity and responsiveness of PEI-2 in measuring changes in enablement, making it a promising tool for evaluating enablement in cohort and intervention studies.

SUBMITTER: Bedford LE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8414911 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, there are no outcome measures assessing the ability of people with non-specific low back pain to self-manage their illness. Inspired by the 'Patient Enablement Instrument', we developed the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP). The aim of this study was to describe the development of the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP) and investigate content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, measurement error, responsiveness and floor and ceiling effects.MethodsThe PEI-BP consists of 6 items that are rated on a 0-10 Numeric Rating Scale. Measurement properties were evaluated using the COSMIN taxonomy and were based on three cohorts from primary care with low back pain: The content validity cohort (N = 14) which participated in semi-structured interviews, the GLA:D® Back cohort (N = 272) and the test-retest cohort (N = 37) which both completed self-reported questionnaires. For construct validity and responsiveness, enablement was compared to disability (Oswestry Disability Index), back pain beliefs (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire), fear avoidance (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire-physical activity), mental health (SF-36), educational level and number of previous episodes of low back pain.ResultsThe PEI-BP was found to have acceptable content validity, construct validity, reliability (internal consistency, test-retest reliability and measurement error) and responsiveness. The Smallest Detectable Change was 10.1 points illustrating that a patient would have to change more than 1/6 of the scale range for it to be a true change. A skewed distribution towards the high scores were found at baseline indicating a potentially problematic ceiling effect in the current population.ConclusionsThe PEI-BP can be considered a valid and reliable tool to measure enablement on people seeking care for non-specific LBP. Further testing of the PEI-BP in populations with more severe LBP is recommended.Trial registrationNot applicable.

Project description:Enabling patients with asthma to obtain the knowledge, confidence and skills they need in order to assume a major role in the management of their disease is cost effective. It should be an integral part of any plan for long-term control of asthma. The modified Patient Enablement Instrument (mPEI) is an easily administered questionnaire that was adapted in the United Kingdom to measure patient enablement in asthma, but its applicability in Portugal is not known. Validity and reliability of questionnaires should be tested before use in settings different from those of the original version. The purpose of this study was to test the applicability of the mPEI to Portuguese asthma patients after translation and cross-cultural adaptation, and to verify the structural validity, internal consistency and reproducibility of the instrument. The mPEI was translated to Portuguese and back translated to English. Its content validity was assessed by a debriefing interview with 10 asthma patients. The translated instrument was then administered to a random sample of 142 patients with persistent asthma. Structural validity and internal consistency were assessed. For reproducibility analysis, 86 patients completed the instrument again 7 days later. Item-scale correlations and exploratory factor analysis were used to assess structural validity. Cronbach's alpha was used to test internal consistency, and the intra-class correlation coefficient was used for the analysis of reproducibility. All items of the Portuguese version of the mPEI were found to be equivalent to the original English version. There were strong item-scale correlations that confirmed construct validity, with a one component structure and good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha >0.8) as well as high test-retest reliability (ICC=0.85). The mPEI showed sound psychometric properties for the evaluation of enablement in patients with asthma making it a reliable instrument for use in research and clinical practice in Portugal. Further studies are needed to confirm its responsiveness.

Project description:We studied the Osteoporosis and You knowledge scale in 7749 participants enrolled in a clinical trial. Results confirmed its psychometric properties in a diverse audience. Baseline scores were associated with better recall of bone mineral density test results at follow-up; however, the scale was not responsive to knowledge change.The goal of this study was to confirm the measurement properties of the Osteoporosis and You (O&Y) knowledge scale using classic test theory methods in the 7749 men and women participating in the Patient Activation After DXA Result Notification (PAADRN) randomized controlled trial. We hypothesized a simple factor structure that would reflect the four-factor model previously published.We conducted psychometric analyses which included item analysis, internal consistency reliability, construct validity using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA), comparing knowledge levels across pre-specified groups, and responsiveness to change.PAADRN participants were predominantly college educated, White females with low bone density, and a moderate level of 10-year fracture risk. EFA revealed four domains closely matching those in two previous reports. While overall scale reliability was minimally acceptable at 0.68, the reliabilities of the domain subscales were unacceptably low (0.59, 0.64, 0.45, and 0.36 for the Biological, Lifestyle, Consequences, and Prevention and Treatment subscales). CFA revealed the data fit the hypothesized model reasonably well with the items loading on their expected latent variable. The scale was not responsive to change, but although not significant, improved knowledge indicated better DXA result recall at 12 and 52 weeks.In the PAADRN population, the O&Y knowledge scale had psychometric properties similar to those previously reported. Over 12 and 52 weeks, participants did not demonstrate significant changes in knowledge, but those with higher knowledge at baseline were more likely to accurately recall their baseline DXA result.