Patient empowerment in young persons with chronic conditions: Psychometric properties of the Gothenburg Young Persons Empowerment Scale (GYPES)

Mariela Acuña Mora, Koen Luyckx, Carina Sparud-Lundin, Mariëlle Peeters, AnneLoes van Staa, Jane Sattoe, Ewa-Lena Bratt, Philip Moons, Mariela Acuña Mora, Koen Luyckx, Carina Sparud-Lundin, Mariëlle Peeters, AnneLoes van Staa, Jane Sattoe, Ewa-Lena Bratt, Philip Moons

Abstract

Purpose: Empowerment in patients can lead to a higher participation in care and self-management skills. However, there are a limited number of high-quality instruments to assess empowerment and its various dimensions in young persons. The aim was to develop and assess the psychometric properties of the Gothenburg Young Persons Empowerment Scale (GYPES).

Methods: The GYPES is a 15-item questionnaire designed to measure patient empowerment in young persons with chronic conditions. Three studies were conducted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the scale. Studies I and II assessed face, content and factorial validity, as well as responsiveness and reliability in young persons with congenital heart disease and diabetes. After these studies problematic items were identified and reworded and the final version of the GYPES was tested in young persons with diabetes in study III.

Results: The content and face validity of the scale was confirmed in study I. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) in study II supported the five-factor structure of the GYPES. However, one item had a low factor loading. The scale was revised and evaluated in study III. CFA of this version supported adequate model fit with factor loadings ranging from 0.385-0.941. A second-order model had an adequate fit to the data. Cronbach's alpha for the overall scale was 0.858 and for each subscale, alphas range from 0.609-0.858.

Conclusions: GYPES was developed to measure patient empowerment in young persons with chronic conditions. Preliminary evidence supports that the GYPES may be a valid and reliable tool for assessing young persons' empowerment.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Latent correlations within factors.
Fig 1. Latent correlations within factors.

References

    1. Nolte E, McKee M. Integration and chronic care: a review In: Nolte EM, M., editor. Caring for people with chronic conditions, a health system perspective Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2008. p. p.64–92.
    1. Entwistle VA, Cribb A, Owens J. Why health and social care support for people with long-term conditions should be oriented towards enabling them to live well. Health care analysis. 2016. 10.1007/s10728-016-0335-1 .
    1. World Health Organization. Health 2020 policy framework and strategy document. Copenhaguen, Denmark:2012.
    1. Cerezo PG, Juve-Udina ME, Delgado-Hito P. Concepts and measures of patient empowerment: a comprehensive review. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2016;50(4):667–74. 10.1590/S0080-623420160000500018 .
    1. Bravo P, Edwards A, Barr PJ, Scholl I, Elwyn G, McAllister M. Conceptualising patient empowerment: a mixed methods study. BMC Health Services Research. 2015;15(1):252 10.1186/s12913-015-0907-z
    1. Funnell MM, Anderson RM. Empowerment and self-management of diabetes. Clin Diabetes. 2004;22:123–27. 10.2337/diaclin.22.3.123
    1. Aujoulat I, d'Hoore W, Deccache A. Patient empowerment in theory and practice: polysemy or cacophony? Patient Educ Couns. 2007;66(1):13–20. 10.1016/j.pec.2006.09.008 .
    1. Gibson CH. A concept analysis of empowerment. J Adv Nurs. 1991;16(3):354–61. Epub 1991/03/01. .
    1. Small N, Bower P, Chew-Graham CA, Whalley D, Protheroe J. Patient empowerment in long-term conditions: development and preliminary testing of a new measure. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13(1):263 10.1186/1472-6963-13-263
    1. Barr PJ, Scholl I, Bravo P, Faber MJ, Elwyn G, McAllister M. Assessment of patient empowerment—a systematic review of measures. PLOS ONE. 2015;10(5):e0126553 10.1371/journal.pone.0126553
    1. Castro EM, Van Regenmortel T, Vanhaecht K, Sermeus W, Van Hecke A. Patient empowerment, patient participation and patient-centeredness in hospital care: A concept analysis based on a literature review. Patient Education and Counseling. 2016;99(12):1923–39. 10.1016/j.pec.2016.07.026.
    1. Herbert RJ, Gagnon AJ, Rennick JE, O'Loughlin JL. A systematic review of questionnaires measuring health-related empowerment. Research and theory for nursing practice. 2009;23(2):107–32. .
    1. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186–91. .
    1. Hilton A, Skrutkowski M. Translating instruments into other languages: development and testing processes. Cancer Nurs. 2002;25(1):1–7. doi: WOS:000173712200001.
    1. Swedish Registry of Congenital Heart Disease. About SWEDCON: Uppsala Clinical Research Center 2016. Available from: .
    1. Warnes CA, Liberthson R, Danielson GK, Dore A, Harris L, Hoffman JI, et al. Task force 1: the changing profile of congenital heart disease in adult life. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37(5):1170–5. .
    1. Mail Dillman D. and other self-administered questionnaires In: Rossi PH, Wright JD, Anderson AB, editors. Handbook of survey research. New York: Academic Press; 1983. p. pp. 359–77.
    1. American Educational Research Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, American Psychological Association Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing: American Educational Research Association; 1999.
    1. Jackson DL, Gillaspy JA, Purc-Stephenson R. Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: an overview and some recommendations. Psychol Methods. 2009;14(1):6–23. 10.1037/a0014694 .
    1. Lt Hu, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999;6(1):1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118
    1. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education. 2011;2:53–5. 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd PMC4205511.
    1. Roach KE. Measurement of health outcomes: Reliability, validity and responsiveness. Proceedings of the American Academy of Orthotists and Prosthetists. 2006:8–12. WOS:000236534300002.
    1. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt DAWM, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012 WOS:000243055800005.
    1. Maneesriwongul W, Dixon JK. Instrument translation process: a methods review. J Adv Nurs. 2004;48(2):175–86. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03185.x .
    1. Osborne JW. Best practices in quantitative methods. Los Angeles, California: SAGE; 2008.
    1. Acuña Mora M, Sparud-Lundin C, Bratt E-L, Moons P. Person-centred transition programme to empower adolescents with congenital heart disease in the transition to adulthood: a study protocol for a hybrid randomised controlled trial (STEPSTONES project). BMJ Open. 2017;7(4). 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014593
    1. Faulkner M. A measure of patient empowerment in hospital environments catering for older people. J Adv Nurs. 2001;34(5):676–86. .
    1. Bulsara C, Styles I, Ward AM, Bulsara M. The psychometrics of developing the patient empowerment scale. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2006;24 10.1300/J077v24n02_01
    1. Lopez JE, Orrell M, Morgan L, Warner J. Empowerment in older psychiatric inpatients: development of the empowerment questionnaire for inpatients (EQuIP). The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 2010;18(1):21–32. 10.1097/JGP.0b013e3181b2090b.
    1. Kim SC, Boren D, Solem SL. The Kim Alliance Scale: development and preliminary testing. Clinical nursing research. 2001;10(3):314–31. 10.1177/c10n3r7 .
    1. Svedberg P, Svensson B, Arvidsson B, Hansson L. The construct validity of a self-report questionnaire focusing on health promotion interventions in mental health services. Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing. 2007;14(6):566–72. 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2007.01129.x .
    1. Anderson RM, Funnell MM, Fitzgerald JT, Marrero DG. The Diabetes Empowerment Scale: a measure of psychosocial self-efficacy. Diabetes Care. 2000;23(6):739–43. 10.2337/diacare.23.6.739
    1. Arvidsson S, Bergman S, Arvidsson B, Fridlund B, Tingstrom P. Psychometric properties of the Swedish Rheumatic Disease Empowerment Scale, SWE-RES-23. Musculoskeletal Care. 2012;10(2):101–9. 10.1002/msc.1005 .
    1. Knapp TR, Kimble LP, Dunbar SB. Distinguishing between the stability of a construct and the stability of an instrument in trait/state measurement. Nurs Res. 1998;47(1):60–2. 10.1097/00006199-199801000-00011 WOS:000072294800011.
    1. Guyatt GH, Deyo RA, Charlson M, Levine MN, Mitchell A. Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement: a clarification. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42(5):403–8. .
    1. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012 .

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel