David T Eton1,2, Minji K Lee3, Jennifer L St Sauver4,3, Roger T Anderson5. 1. Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Harwick Building, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. eton.david@mayo.edu. 2. Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. eton.david@mayo.edu. 3. Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 4. Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Harwick Building, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. 5. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to test the known-groups validity and responsiveness to change of the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS, vs. 2.0), a measure of treatment burden. METHODS: The PETS and other standard measures were mailed at baseline and 12-month follow-up to adults living with multiple chronic conditions in southeast Minnesota (USA). A sample of 365 people (mean age = 62.1 years) completed both surveys. Baseline, 12-month, and changes in PETS burden scores were examined. Clinical anchors used to test validity included number of diagnoses (2-4 vs. 5+), mental health diagnosis (yes/no), medication adherence and health literacy (suboptimal/optimal), and changes in self-efficacy, global physical, and global mental health (worsening/improving). Independent-samples t-tests were used to compare scores. RESULTS: PETS scales showed good internal consistency (αs ≥ 0.80). There were few differences across number of diagnoses, but having a mental health diagnosis was associated with higher baseline PETS burden scores (Ps < .05). Suboptimal medication adherence and health literacy over time were associated with worse 12-month PETS burden scores (Ps < .05). Compared with improvements, declines over time in self-efficacy, global physical health, and global mental health were each associated with worsening change scores on PETS impact summary, medical expenses, and bother due to medication reliance and medication side effects (Ps < .05). CONCLUSION: Among multi-morbid adults, the PETS demonstrated evidence of known-groups validity and responsiveness to change across both objective (e.g., mental health diagnoses) and subjective anchors (e.g., changes in self-efficacy, global physical, and global mental health).
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to test the known-groups validity and responsiveness to change of the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS, vs. 2.0), a measure of treatment burden. METHODS: The PETS and other standard measures were mailed at baseline and 12-month follow-up to adults living with multiple chronic conditions in southeast Minnesota (USA). A sample of 365 people (mean age = 62.1 years) completed both surveys. Baseline, 12-month, and changes in PETS burden scores were examined. Clinical anchors used to test validity included number of diagnoses (2-4 vs. 5+), mental health diagnosis (yes/no), medication adherence and health literacy (suboptimal/optimal), and changes in self-efficacy, global physical, and global mental health (worsening/improving). Independent-samples t-tests were used to compare scores. RESULTS: PETS scales showed good internal consistency (αs ≥ 0.80). There were few differences across number of diagnoses, but having a mental health diagnosis was associated with higher baseline PETS burden scores (Ps < .05). Suboptimal medication adherence and health literacy over time were associated with worse 12-month PETS burden scores (Ps < .05). Compared with improvements, declines over time in self-efficacy, global physical health, and global mental health were each associated with worsening change scores on PETS impact summary, medical expenses, and bother due to medication reliance and medication side effects (Ps < .05). CONCLUSION: Among multi-morbid adults, the PETS demonstrated evidence of known-groups validity and responsiveness to change across both objective (e.g., mental health diagnoses) and subjective anchors (e.g., changes in self-efficacy, global physical, and global mental health).
Authors: Cynthia M Boyd; Jennifer L Wolff; Erin Giovannetti; Lisa Reider; Carlos Weiss; Qian-li Xue; Bruce Leff; Chad Boult; Travonia Hughes; Cynthia Rand Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Marcus G Wild; Kenneth A Wallston; Jamie A Green; Lauren B Beach; Ebele Umeukeje; Julie A Wright Nunes; T Alp Ikizler; Julia Steed; Kerri L Cavanaugh Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Jennifer L St Sauver; Brandon R Grossardt; Barbara P Yawn; L Joseph Melton; Joshua J Pankratz; Scott M Brue; Walter A Rocca Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2012-11-18 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Lisa D Chew; Joan M Griffin; Melissa R Partin; Siamak Noorbaloochi; Joseph P Grill; Annamay Snyder; Katharine A Bradley; Sean M Nugent; Alisha D Baines; Michelle Vanryn Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-03-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Viet-Thi Tran; Victor M Montori; David T Eton; Dan Baruch; Bruno Falissard; Philippe Ravaud Journal: BMC Med Date: 2012-07-04 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Elizabeth A Rogers; Kathleen J Yost; Jordan K Rosedahl; Mark Linzer; Deborah H Boehm; Azra Thakur; Sara Poplau; Roger T Anderson; David T Eton Journal: Patient Relat Outcome Meas Date: 2017-11-09
Authors: Chris J Gibbons; Cassandra Kenning; Peter A Coventry; Penny Bee; Christine Bundy; Louise Fisher; Peter Bower Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: David T Eton; Roger T Anderson; Jennifer L St Sauver; Elizabeth A Rogers; Mark Linzer; Minji K Lee Journal: J Multimorb Comorb Date: 2022-02-27
Authors: David T Eton; Mark Linzer; Deborah H Boehm; Catherine E Vanderboom; Elizabeth A Rogers; Marlene H Frost; Mike Wambua; Miamoua Vang; Sara Poplau; Minji K Lee; Roger T Anderson Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2020-10-28 Impact factor: 2.634