Validity and reliability of the patient assessment on chronic illness care (PACIC) questionnaire: the Malay version

Suraya Abdul-Razak, Anis Safura Ramli, Siti Fatimah Badlishah-Sham, Jamaiyah Haniff, EMPOWER-PAR Investigators, Ng Chirk Jenn, Inderjit Singh Ludher, Suhazeli Abdullah, Teng Cheong Lieng, Verna K M Lee, Ng Kien Keat, Farnaza Ariffin, Hasidah Abdul-Hamid, Mazapuspavina Md Yasin, Nafiza Mat-Nasir, Maizatullifah Miskan, Yong-Rafidah Abdul Rahman, Mastura Ismail, Wilson H H Low, Sarimah Mahmood, Maryam Hannah Daud, Khamsiah Abdul Shukor, Syarifah Azimah Wan Ali, Suraya Abdul-Razak, Anis Safura Ramli, Siti Fatimah Badlishah-Sham, Jamaiyah Haniff, EMPOWER-PAR Investigators, Ng Chirk Jenn, Inderjit Singh Ludher, Suhazeli Abdullah, Teng Cheong Lieng, Verna K M Lee, Ng Kien Keat, Farnaza Ariffin, Hasidah Abdul-Hamid, Mazapuspavina Md Yasin, Nafiza Mat-Nasir, Maizatullifah Miskan, Yong-Rafidah Abdul Rahman, Mastura Ismail, Wilson H H Low, Sarimah Mahmood, Maryam Hannah Daud, Khamsiah Abdul Shukor, Syarifah Azimah Wan Ali

Abstract

Background: Majority of patients with chronic illnesses such as diabetes, receive care at primary care setting. Efforts have been made to restructure diabetes care in the Malaysian primary care setting in accordance with the Chronic Care Model (CCM). The Patient Assessment on Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) is a validated self-report tool to measure the extent to which patients with chronic illness receive care that aligns with the CCM. To date, no validated tool is available to evaluate healthcare delivery based on the CCM in the Malay language. Thus, the study aimed to translate the PACIC into the Malay language and validate the questionnaire among patients with diabetes in the Malaysian public primary care setting.

Methods: The English version of the PACIC questionnaire is a 20-item scale measuring five key components, which are patient activation, decision support, goal setting, problem solving and follow-up care. The PACIC underwent forward - backward translation and cross cultural adaptation process to produce the PACIC-Malay version (PACIC-M). Reliability was tested using internal consistencies and test-retest reliability analyses, while construct validity was tested using the exploratory factor analysis (EFA).

Results: The content of PACIC-M and the original version were conceptually equivalent. Overall, the internal consistency by Cronbach's α was .94 and the intra-class correlation coefficient was .93. One item was deleted (item 1) when the factor loading was < 0.4. The factor analyses using promax identified three components ('Goal Setting/Tailoring and Problem solving/Contextual', 'follow-up/coordination' and 'patient activation and delivery system design/ decision support'); explaining 61.2% of the variation. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) was 0.93 and Bartlett's test of sphericity was p = .000. Therefore, the final version of the PACIC-M consisted of 19 items, framed within three components.

Conclusion: The findings demonstrated that the PACIC-M measured different dimensions from the English version of PACIC. It is however; highly reliable and valid to be used in assessing three CCM model subscales. Further confirmatory factor analysis of PACIC-M should be conducted to confirm this new model.

Keywords: Cultural adaption; Malaysia; PACIC; Reliability; Validation.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

We had obtained written permission from Professor Russell E. Glasgow to adapt, translate and validate the PACIC questionnaire. This validation study was approved by the institutional Ethics Committee of Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) and the Medical Research Ethics Committee of the Ministry of Health (MOH), Malaysia. Patient information sheets were distributed in two languages i.e. Malay and English. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their study enrolment. Confidentiality of personal information was ensured at all times. Enrolment was done by the investigators and not the participants’ attending doctors to reduce participants’ perceived coercion to participate in the study.

Consent for publication

Participants’ consent for publication is not applicable as person’s individual data was not provided.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of the conduct of the study
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Matrix plot of mean score for overall, patient activation, decision support, goal setting and follow up

References

    1. Bodenheimer T, Wagner E, Grumbach K. Improving primary care for patients. JAMA. 2002;288(15):1990–1914. doi: 10.1001/jama.288.15.1909.
    1. Rothman AA, Wagner EH. Future of primary care chronic illness management : what is the role of primary care ? Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:256–261. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-138-3-200302040-00034.
    1. Bensing J. Bridging the gap. The separate worlds of evidence-based medicine and patient-centered medicine. Patient Educ Couns. 2000;39(1):17–25. doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(99)00087-7.
    1. Glasgow RE, Whitesides H, Nelson CC, King DK. Use of the patient assessment of chronic illness care (PACIC) with diabetic patients: relationship to patient characteristics, receipt of care, and self-management. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(11):2655–2661. doi: 10.2337/diacare.28.11.2655.
    1. Tsai AC, Morton SC, Mangione CM, Keeler EB. A meta-analysis of interventions to improve care for chronic illnesses. Am J Manag Care. 2005;11(8):478–488.
    1. Drewes HW, Steuten LMG, Lemmens LC, Baan CA, Boshuizen HC, Elissen AMJ, et al. The effectiveness of chronic care management for heart failure: meta-regression analyses to explain the heterogeneity in outcomes. Health Serv Res. 2012;47(5):1926–1959. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01396.x.
    1. Ramli AS, Selvarajah S, Daud MH, Haniff J, Abdul-Razak S, TMI T-A-B-S, et al. Effectiveness of the EMPOWER-PAR intervention in improving clinical outcomes of type 2 diabetes mellitus in primary care: a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial. BMC Fam Pract. 2016;17(1):157. doi: 10.1186/s12875-016-0557-1.
    1. Ku G, Kegels G. Implementing elements of a context-adapted chronic care model to improve first-line diabetes care: effects on assessment of chronic illness care and glycaemic control among people with diabetes enrolled to the first-line diabetes care (FiLDCare) project in the Northern Philippines. Prim Heal Care Res Dev. 2015;16(5):481–491. doi: 10.1017/S1463423614000553.
    1. Ariffin F, Ramli AS, Daud MH, Haniff J, Abdul-Razak S, Selvarajah S, et al. Feasibility of implementing chronic care model in the Malaysian public primary care setting. Med J Malaysia. 2017;72(2):106–112.
    1. Mustapha FI, Omar ZA, Mihat O, Noh K, Hassan N, Bakar RA, et al. Addressing non-communicable diseases in Malaysia : an integrative process of systems and community. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(Suppl 2):S4. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-S2-S4.
    1. Glasgow RE, Wagner EH, Schaefer J, Mahoney LD, Reid RJ, Greene SM. Development and validation of the patient assessment of chronic illness care (PACIC) Med Care. 2005;43(5):436–444. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000160375.47920.8c.
    1. Vrijhoef HJM, Berbee R, Wagner EH, Steuten LMG. Quality of integrated chronic care measured by patient survey: identification, selection and application of most appropriate instruments. Health Expect. 2009;12(4):417–429. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00557.x.
    1. Hibbard JH. Engaging health care consumers to improve the quality of care. Med Care. 2003;41(1 Suppl):I61–I70.
    1. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, et al. Principles of good practice for the translation and vultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translating adaptation. Value Heal. 2005;8(2):94–104. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x.
    1. Gjersing L, Caplehorn JRM, Clausen T. Cross-cultural adaptation of research instruments: language, setting, time and statistical considerations. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:13. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-13.
    1. Ramli AS, Lakshmanan S, Haniff J, Selvarajah S, Tong SF, Bujang M-A, et al. Study protocol of EMPOWER participatory action research (EMPOWER-PAR): a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial of multifaceted chronic disease management strategies to improve diabetes and hypertension outcomes in primary care. BMC Fam Pract. 2014;15(1):151. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-15-151.
    1. Gorsuch RL. Factor analysis. 2. HiIlsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1983.
    1. McHorney CA, Tarlov A. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4(4):293–307. doi: 10.1007/BF01593882.
    1. K A B. A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociol Methods Res. 1989;17(3):303–316. doi: 10.1177/0049124189017003004.
    1. Bentler P. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psycho Bull. 1990;107:238–246. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.
    1. Stevens J. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. 4. Hillsdale: Mahwah: Erlbaum, L; 2002.
    1. Sitzia J. How valid and reliable are patient satisfaction data? An analysis of 195 studies. Int J Qual Heal Care. 1999;11(4):319–328. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/11.4.319.
    1. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.
    1. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420–428. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420.
    1. Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess. 1994;6(4):284–290. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284.
    1. Maccallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling of fit involving a particular measure of model. Psychol Methods. 1996;13(2):130–149. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130.
    1. Rosemann T, Laux G, Droesemeyer S, Gensichen J, Szecsenyi J. Evaluation of a culturally adapted German version of the patient assessment of chronic illness care (PACIC 5A) questionnaire in a sample of osteoarthritis patients. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007;13(5):806–813. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00786.x.
    1. Maindal HT, Sokolowski I, Vedsted P. Adaptation, data quality and confirmatory factor analysis of the Danish version of the PACIC questionnaire. Eur J Pub Health. 2012;22(1):31–36. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckq188.
    1. Wensing M, van Lieshout J, Jung HP, Hermsen J, Rosemann T. The patients assessment chronic illness care (PACIC) questionnaire in the Netherlands: a validation study in rural general practice. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:182. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-182.
    1. Aragones A, Schaefer EW, Stevens D, Gourevitch MN, Glasgow RE, Shah NR, et al. Validation of the Spanish translation of the patient assessment of chronic illness care (PACIC) survey. Prev Chronic Dis. 2008;5(4):A113.
    1. Fan J, McCoy RG, Ziegenfuss JY, Smith SA, Borah BJ, Deming JR, et al. Evaluating the structure of the patient assessment of chronic illness care (PACIC) survey from the Patient’s perspective. Ann Behav Med. 2015;49(1):104–111. doi: 10.1007/s12160-014-9638-3.
    1. Tusek-Bunc K, Petek-Ster M, Ster B, Petek D, Kersnik J. Validation of the Slovenian version of patient assessment of chronic illness care (PACIC) in patients with coronary heart disease. Coll Antropol. 2014;38(2):437–444.
    1. Taggart J, Chan B, Jayasinghe UW, Christl B, Proudfoot J, Crookes P, et al. Patients assessment of chronic illness care (PACIC) in two Australian studies: structure and utility. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(2):215–221. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01423.x.
    1. Gugiu C, Coryn CLS, Applegate B. Structure and measurement properties of the patient assessment of chronic illness care instrument. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010;16(3):509–516.
    1. Spicer J, Budge C, Carryer J. Taking the PACIC back to basics: the structure of the patient assessment of chronic illness care. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18(2):307–312. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01568.x.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する