Jennifer E Prey1, Min Qian2, Susan Restaino3, Judith Hibbard4, Suzanne Bakken5, Rebecca Schnall6, Gloria Rothenberg6, David K Vawdrey7, Ruth Masterson Creber6. 1. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: jep2175@cumc.columbia.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 3. NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA. 4. Institute for Policy Research and Innovation, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA. 5. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA; School of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 6. School of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 7. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA; NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this paper are to describe the internal consistency reliability and construct validity of the PAM-13 for hospitalized cardiology and oncology patients and to examine the predictors of low patient activation in the same population. METHODS: We evaluated the internal consistency reliability of the PAM-13 in the inpatient setting. Construct validity of the PAM-13 was then assessed using two approaches: expected known-groups differences between patients with planned and unplanned admissions PAM-13 levels and convergence of PAM-13 levels with other measures. RESULTS: The PAM demonstrated adequate internal consistency overall (Cronbach α=0.81). Patients with unplanned admissions were more likely to have low activation than patients with planned admissions (adjusted OR=5.7, p=0.008). The PAM-13 was modestly correlated (p<0.001) with each of the PROMIS Global Health components used in this study (global, physical and mental health). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the PAM-13 is a reliable and valid measure for use in the inpatient hospital setting and that type of admission (planned versus unplanned) is an important predictor of patient activation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: By measuring patient activation with the PAM-13, clinicians and researchers can provide tailored communication and care strategies to meet patient's needs.
OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this paper are to describe the internal consistency reliability and construct validity of the PAM-13 for hospitalized cardiology and oncology patients and to examine the predictors of low patient activation in the same population. METHODS: We evaluated the internal consistency reliability of the PAM-13 in the inpatient setting. Construct validity of the PAM-13 was then assessed using two approaches: expected known-groups differences between patients with planned and unplanned admissions PAM-13 levels and convergence of PAM-13 levels with other measures. RESULTS: The PAM demonstrated adequate internal consistency overall (Cronbach α=0.81). Patients with unplanned admissions were more likely to have low activation than patients with planned admissions (adjusted OR=5.7, p=0.008). The PAM-13 was modestly correlated (p<0.001) with each of the PROMIS Global Health components used in this study (global, physical and mental health). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the PAM-13 is a reliable and valid measure for use in the inpatient hospital setting and that type of admission (planned versus unplanned) is an important predictor of patient activation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: By measuring patient activation with the PAM-13, clinicians and researchers can provide tailored communication and care strategies to meet patient's needs.
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: Tammy Toscos; Carly Daley; Lisa Heral; Riddhi Doshi; Yu-Chieh Chen; George J Eckert; Robert L Plant; Michael J Mirro Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: B Gandek; J E Ware; N K Aaronson; G Apolone; J B Bjorner; J E Brazier; M Bullinger; S Kaasa; A Leplege; L Prieto; M Sullivan Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Kevin J O'Leary; Mary E Lohman; Eckford Culver; Audrey Killarney; G Randy Smith; David M Liebovitz Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-06-15 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: T Delbanco; D M Berwick; J I Boufford; S Edgman-Levitan; G Ollenschläger; D Plamping; R G Rockefeller Journal: Health Expect Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 3.377
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
Authors: Robert Knoerl; Deborah Lee; James Yang; Celia Bridges; Grace Kanzawa-Lee; G Lita Smith; Ellen M Lavoie Smith Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Ruth M Masterson Creber; Lisa V Grossman; Beatriz Ryan; Min Qian; Fernanda C G Polubriaginof; Susan Restaino; Suzanne Bakken; George Hripcsak; David K Vawdrey Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Lisa V Grossman; Ruth M Masterson Creber; Jessica S Ancker; Beatriz Ryan; Fernanda Polubriaginof; Min Qian; Irma Alarcon; Susan Restaino; Suzanne Bakken; George Hripcsak; David K Vawdrey Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Nathaniel A Erskine; Barbara Gandek; Molly E Waring; Rebecca L Kinney; Darleen M Lessard; Randolph S Devereaux; Stavroula A Chrysanthopoulou; Catarina I Kiefe; Robert J Goldberg Journal: J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2018 Mar/Apr Impact factor: 2.083
Authors: Anuj K Dalal; Nicholas Piniella; Theresa E Fuller; Denise Pong; Michael Pardo; Nathaniel Bessa; Catherine Yoon; Stuart Lipsitz; Jeffrey L Schnipper Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-03-18 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Courtney J Lightfoot; Thomas J Wilkinson; Katherine E Memory; Jared Palmer; Alice C Smith Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2021-06-11 Impact factor: 10.614