11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Validating the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-Management (PETS), a patient-reported measure of treatment burden, in people with diabetes

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aims

          To validate a comprehensive general measure of treatment burden, the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-Management (PETS), in people with diabetes.

          Methods

          We conducted a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional survey study with 120 people diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and at least one additional chronic illness. Surveys included established patient-reported outcome measures and a 48-item version of the PETS, a new measure comprised of multi-item scales assessing the burden of chronic illness treatment and self-care as it relates to nine domains: medical information, medications, medical appointments, monitoring health, interpersonal challenges, health care expenses, difficulty with health care services, role activity limitations, and physical/mental exhaustion from self-management. Internal reliability of PETS scales was determined using Cronbach’s alpha. Construct validity was determined through correlation of PETS scores with established measures (measures of chronic condition distress, medication satisfaction, self-efficacy, and global well-being), and known-groups validity through comparisons of PETS scores across clinically distinct groups. In an exploratory test of predictive validity, step-wise regressions were used to determine which PETS scales were most associated with outcomes of chronic condition distress, overall physical and mental health, and medication adherence.

          Results

          Respondents were 37–88 years old, 59% female, 29% non-white, and 67% college-educated. PETS scales showed good reliability (Cronbach’s alphas ≥0.74). Higher PETS scale scores (greater treatment burden) were correlated with more chronic condition distress, less medication convenience, lower self-efficacy, and worse general physical and mental health. Participants less (versus more) adherent to medications and those with more (versus fewer) health care financial difficulties had higher mean PETS scores. Medication burden was the scale that was most consistently associated with well-being and patient-reported adherence.

          Conclusion

          The PETS is a reliable and valid measure for assessing perceived treatment burden in people coping with diabetes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Book: not found

          Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences

          <i>Statistical Power Analysis</i> is a nontechnical guide to power analysis in research planning that provides users of applied statistics with the tools they need for more effective analysis. The Second Edition includes: <br> * a chapter covering power analysis in set correlation and multivariate methods;<br> * a chapter considering effect size, psychometric reliability, and the efficacy of "qualifying" dependent variables and;<br> * expanded power and sample size tables for multiple regression/correlation.<br>
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Assessing psychosocial distress in diabetes: development of the diabetes distress scale.

            The purpose of this study was to describe the development of the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS), a new instrument for the assessment of diabetes-related emotional distress, based on four independent patient samples. In consultation with patients and professionals from multiple disciplines, a preliminary scale of 28 items was developed, based a priori on four distress-related domains: emotional burden subscale, physician-related distress subscale, regimen-related distress subscale, and diabetes-related interpersonal distress. The new instrument was included in a larger battery of questionnaires used in diabetes studies at four diverse sites: waiting room at a primary care clinic (n = 200), waiting room at a diabetes specialty clinic (n = 179), a diabetes management study program (n = 167), and an ongoing diabetes management program (n = 158). Exploratory factor analyses revealed four factors consistent across sites (involving 17 of the 28 items) that matched the critical content domains identified earlier. The correlation between the 28-item and 17-item scales was very high (r = 0.99). The mean correlation between the 17-item total score (DDS) and the four subscales was high (r = 0.82), but the pattern of interscale correlations suggested that the subscales, although not totally independent, tapped into relatively different areas of diabetes-related distress. Internal reliability of the DDS and the four subscales was adequate (alpha > 0.87), and validity coefficients yielded significant linkages with the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, meal planning, exercise, and total cholesterol. Insulin users evidenced the highest mean DDS total scores, whereas diet-controlled subjects displayed the lowest scores (P < 0.001). The DDS has a consistent, generalizable factor structure and good internal reliability and validity across four different clinical sites. The new instrument may serve as a valuable measure of diabetes-related emotional distress for use in research and clinical practice.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The Single Item Literacy Screener: Evaluation of a brief instrument to identify limited reading ability

              Background Reading skills are important for accessing health information, using health care services, managing one's health and achieving desirable health outcomes. Our objective was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the Single Item Literacy Screener (SILS) to identify limited reading ability, one component of health literacy, as measured by the S-TOFHLA. Methods Cross-sectional interview with 999 adults with diabetes residing in Vermont and bordering states. Participants were randomly recruited from Primary Care practices in the Vermont Diabetes Information System June 2003 – December 2004. The main outcome was limited reading ability. The primary predictor was the SILS. Results Of the 999 persons screened, 169 (17%) had limited reading ability. The sensitivity of the SILS in detecting limited reading ability was 54% [95% CI: 47%, 61%] and the specificity was 83% [95% CI: 81%, 86%] with an area under the Receiver Operating Characteristics Curve (ROC) of 0.73 [95% CI: 0.69, 0.78]. Seven hundred seventy (77%) screened negative on the SILS and 692 of these subjects had adequate reading skills (negative predictive value = 0.90 [95% CI: 0.88, 0.92]). Of the 229 who scored positive on the SILS, 92 had limited reading ability (positive predictive value = 0.4 [95% CI: 0.34, 0.47]). Conclusion The SILS is a simple instrument designed to identify patients with limited reading ability who need help reading health-related materials. The SILS performs moderately well at ruling out limited reading ability in adults and allows providers to target additional assessment of health literacy skills to those most in need. Further study of the use of the SILS in clinical settings and with more diverse populations is warranted.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Patient Relat Outcome Meas
                Patient Relat Outcome Meas
                Patient Related Outcome Measures
                Patient Related Outcome Measures
                Dove Medical Press
                1179-271X
                2017
                09 November 2017
                : 8
                : 143-156
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA
                [2 ]Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA
                [3 ]Department of Health Services Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
                [4 ]Department of Medicine, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA
                [5 ]Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Minneapolis, MN, USA
                [6 ]University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Elizabeth A Rogers, Division of General Internal Medicine, 717 Delaware Street SE, Suite 166, Minneapolis, MN 55414, USA, Tel +1 612 625 5474, Fax +1 612 626 6782, Email earogers@ 123456umn.edu
                Article
                prom-8-143
                10.2147/PROM.S140851
                5687778
                29184456
                d72ae15f-d84a-4633-9419-ddbeb147faaf
                © 2017 Rogers et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                History
                Categories
                Original Research

                Medicine
                treatment burden,patient-reported measure,measurement,patient perspective,disease management

                Comments

                Comment on this article