RATIONALE: There is a need for a brief, validated patient self-report instrument to assess the extent to which patients with chronic illness receive care that aligns with the Chronic Care Model-measuring care that is patient-centered, proactive, planned and includes collaborative goal setting; problem-solving and follow-up support. SAMPLE: A total of 283 adults reporting one or more chronic illness from a large integrated health care delivery system were studied. METHODS: Participants completed the 20-item Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) as well as measures of demographic factors, a patient activation scale, and subscales from a primary care assessment instrument so that we could evaluate measurement performance, construct, and concurrent validity of the PACIC. RESULTS: The PACIC consists of 5 scales and an overall summary score, each having good internal consistency for brief scales. As predicted, the PACIC was only slightly correlated with age and gender, and unrelated to education. Contrary to prediction, it was only slightly correlated (r = 0.13) with number of chronic conditions. The PACIC demonstrated moderate test-retest reliability (r = 0.58 during the course of 3 months) and was correlated moderately, as predicted (r = 0.32-0.60, median = 0.50, P < 0.001) to measures of primary care and patient activation. DISCUSSION: The PACIC appears to be a practical instrument that is reliable and has face, construct, and concurrent validity. The resulting questionnaire is in the public domain, and recommendations for its use in research and quality improvement are outlined.
RATIONALE: There is a need for a brief, validated patient self-report instrument to assess the extent to which patients with chronic illness receive care that aligns with the Chronic Care Model-measuring care that is patient-centered, proactive, planned and includes collaborative goal setting; problem-solving and follow-up support. SAMPLE: A total of 283 adults reporting one or more chronic illness from a large integrated health care delivery system were studied. METHODS:Participants completed the 20-item Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) as well as measures of demographic factors, a patient activation scale, and subscales from a primary care assessment instrument so that we could evaluate measurement performance, construct, and concurrent validity of the PACIC. RESULTS: The PACIC consists of 5 scales and an overall summary score, each having good internal consistency for brief scales. As predicted, the PACIC was only slightly correlated with age and gender, and unrelated to education. Contrary to prediction, it was only slightly correlated (r = 0.13) with number of chronic conditions. The PACIC demonstrated moderate test-retest reliability (r = 0.58 during the course of 3 months) and was correlated moderately, as predicted (r = 0.32-0.60, median = 0.50, P < 0.001) to measures of primary care and patient activation. DISCUSSION: The PACIC appears to be a practical instrument that is reliable and has face, construct, and concurrent validity. The resulting questionnaire is in the public domain, and recommendations for its use in research and quality improvement are outlined.
Authors: Jerilyn K Allen; Cheryl R Dennison-Himmelfarb; Sarah L Szanton; Lee Bone; Martha N Hill; David M Levine; Murray West; Amy Barlow; LaPricia Lewis-Boyer; Mary Donnelly-Strozzo; Carol Curtis; Katherine Anderson Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2011-09-27
Authors: Leif I Solberg; Russell E Glasgow; Jürgen Unützer; Nancy Jaeckels; Gary Oftedahl; Arne Beck; Michael V Maciosek; A Lauren Crain Journal: Med Care Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Russell E Glasgow; Lawrence Fisher; Lisa A Strycker; Danielle Hessler; Deborah J Toobert; Diane K King; Tom Jacobs Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Elizabeth L Tung; Yue Gao; Monica E Peek; Robert S Nocon; Kathryn E Gunter; Sang Mee Lee; Marshall H Chin Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2017-05-30 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Suzanne E Mitchell; Paula M Gardiner; Ekaterina Sadikova; Jessica M Martin; Brian W Jack; Judith H Hibbard; Michael K Paasche-Orlow Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-10-04 Impact factor: 5.128