BACKGROUND: Previous research using cross-sectional data has shown a positive relationship between patient activation and quality of care. The quantitative relationships in the same patients over time, however, remain undefined. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between changes in activation over time and patient-assessed quality of chronic illness care. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: The study used data reported annually from 2008 (N = 3761) to 2010 (N = 3040), using self-report survey questionnaires, completed by patients with type 2 diabetes in a population-based cohort in Queensland, Australia. MAIN MEASURES: Principal measures were the 13-item Patient Activation Measure (PAM), and the 20-item Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) instrument. METHODS: Nonparametric anova was used to determine the association between patient activation and patient-assessed quality of care in low and high patient activation groups at baseline (2008), and in 2009 and 2010, when patients had changed group membership. The Wilcoxon signed ranks test was used to compare the PACIC scores between baseline and each follow-up survey for the same patient activation level. RESULTS: Patient activation was positively associated with the median PACIC score within each survey year and within each of the groups defined at baseline (high- and low-activation groups; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patient activation and the PACIC change in the same direction and should be considered together in the interpretation of patient care assessment. This can be carried out by interpreting PACIC scores within strata of PAM.
BACKGROUND: Previous research using cross-sectional data has shown a positive relationship between patient activation and quality of care. The quantitative relationships in the same patients over time, however, remain undefined. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between changes in activation over time and patient-assessed quality of chronic illness care. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: The study used data reported annually from 2008 (N = 3761) to 2010 (N = 3040), using self-report survey questionnaires, completed by patients with type 2 diabetes in a population-based cohort in Queensland, Australia. MAIN MEASURES: Principal measures were the 13-item Patient Activation Measure (PAM), and the 20-item Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) instrument. METHODS: Nonparametric anova was used to determine the association between patient activation and patient-assessed quality of care in low and high patient activation groups at baseline (2008), and in 2009 and 2010, when patients had changed group membership. The Wilcoxon signed ranks test was used to compare the PACIC scores between baseline and each follow-up survey for the same patient activation level. RESULTS:Patient activation was positively associated with the median PACIC score within each survey year and within each of the groups defined at baseline (high- and low-activation groups; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Patient activation and the PACIC change in the same direction and should be considered together in the interpretation of patient care assessment. This can be carried out by interpreting PACIC scores within strata of PAM.
Authors: Richard L Skolasky; Ariel Frank Green; Daniel Scharfstein; Chad Boult; Lisa Reider; Stephen T Wegener Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2010-11-19 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Linda M Gerber; Yolanda Barrón; Jennifer Mongoven; Margaret McDonald; Ernesto Henriquez; Evie Andreopoulos; Penny H Feldman Journal: J Ambul Care Manage Date: 2011 Jul-Sep
Authors: Margaret P Horsburgh; Janine J Bycroft; Faith M Mahony; Dianne E Roy; Denise J Miller; Felicity A Goodyear-Smith; Erin Cj Donnell Journal: J Prim Health Care Date: 2010-12-01
Authors: Maria Donald; Jo Dower; Robert Ware; Bryan Mukandi; Sanjoti Parekh; Christopher Bain Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-01-05 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Swetha Kambhampati; Tamara Ashvetiya; Neil J Stone; Roger S Blumenthal; Seth S Martin Journal: Curr Cardiol Rep Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 2.931
Authors: Edward Zimbudzi; Clement Lo; Sanjeeva Ranasinha; Gregory R Fulcher; Stephen Jan; Peter G Kerr; Kevan R Polkinghorne; Grant Russell; Rowan G Walker; Sophia Zoungas Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-10-22 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Amédé Gogovor; Regina Visca; Mark A Ware; Marie-France Valois; Gillian Bartlett; Matthew Hunt; Sara Ahmed Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 3.133
Authors: Pamela J McCabe; Lynette G Stuart-Mullen; Christopher J McLeod; Thomas O Byrne; Monika M Schmidt; Megan E Branda; Joan M Griffin Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 2.711