Two principal components, coping and independence, comprise patient enablement in Japan: cross sectional study in Tohoku area

Risk Factors Associated with Preventable Hospitalisation among Rural Community-Dwelling Patients: A Systematic Review

Potentially preventable hospitalisations (PPHs) are common and increase the burden on already stretched healthcare services. Increasingly, psychosocial factors have been recognised as contributing to PPHs and these may be mitigated through greater attention to social capital. This systematic review investigates the factors associated with PPHs within rural populations. The review was designed, conducted, and reported according to PRISMA guidelines and registered with Prospero (ID: CRD42020152194). Four databases were systematically searched, and all potentially relevant papers were screened at the title/abstract level, followed by full-text review by at least two reviewers. Papers published between 2000-2022 were included. Quality assessment was conducted using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and CASP Qualitative checklist. Of the thirteen papers included, eight were quantitative/descriptive and five were qualitative studies. All were from either Australia or the USA. Access to primary healthcare was frequently identified as a determinant of PPH. Socioeconomic, psychosocial, and geographical factors were commonly identified in the qualitative studies. This systematic review highlights the inherent attributes of rural populations that predispose them to PPHs. Equal importance should be given to supply/system factors that restrict access and patient-level factors that influence the ability and capacity of rural communities to receive appropriate primary healthcare.

Validity and Reliability of the Korean Version of the Health Information Technology Usability Evaluation Scale: Psychometric Evaluation

Background

Rigorous development of mobile technologies requires the use of validated instruments to evaluate the usability of these tools, which has become more relevant with the expansion of these technologies. Although various usability evaluation tools have been developed, there are relatively few simple evaluation instruments that have been validated across diseases and languages in mobile health (mHealth) information technology for use in multiple diseases.

Objective

The purpose of this study is to validate the Korean version of the Health Information Technology Usability Evaluation Scale (Korean Health-ITUES) and assess its applicability for different health conditions.

Methods

To develop the Korean Health-ITUES, we used a validation process involving the following 3 steps: (1) customization of the Health-ITUES for menstrual symptoms, (2) translation of the Health-ITUES from English into Korean, and (3) examination of the reliability and validity of the instrument. The translation process adhered to the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for translation and back-translation, expert review, and reconciliation.

Results

The Korean Health-ITUES showed reliable internal consistency with Cronbach α=.951; meanwhile, factor loadings of the 20 items in the 4 subscales ranged from 0.416 to 0.892.

Conclusions

The Health-ITUES demonstrated reliability and validity for its use in assessing mHealth apps’ usability in young Korean women with menstrual discomfort. Given the strong psychometric properties of this tool in Korean and English and across 2 different health conditions, the Health-ITUES is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the usability of mHealth apps. The Health-ITUES is also a valid instrument for evaluating mHealth technologies, which are widely used by patients to self-manage their health and by providers to improve health care delivery.

Rural Patients' Perceptions of Their Potentially Preventable Hospitalisation: A Qualitative Study

Potentially preventable hospitalisations (PPHs) occur when patients receive hospital care for a condition that could have been more appropriately managed in the primary healthcare setting. It is anticipated that the causes of PPHs in rural populations may differ from those in urban populations; however, this is understudied. Semi-structured interviews with 10 rural Australian patients enabled them to describe their recent PPH experience. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to identify the common factors that may have led to their PPH. The analysis revealed that most participants had challenges associated with their health and its optimal self-management. Self-referral to hospital with the belief that this was the only treatment option available was also common. Most participants had limited social networks to call on in times of need or ill health. Finally, difficulty in accessing primary healthcare, especially urgently or after-hours, was described as a frequent cause of PPH. These qualitative accounts revealed that patients describe nonclinical risk factors as contributing to their recent PPH and reinforces that the views of patients should be included when designing interventions to reduce PPHs.

The patient enablement instrument for back pain: reliability, content validity, construct validity and responsiveness

Background

Currently, there are no outcome measures assessing the ability of people with non-specific low back pain to self-manage their illness. Inspired by the ‘Patient Enablement Instrument’, we developed the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP). The aim of this study was to describe the development of the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP) and investigate content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, test–retest reliability, measurement error, responsiveness and floor and ceiling effects.

Methods

The PEI-BP consists of 6 items that are rated on a 0–10 Numeric Rating Scale. Measurement properties were evaluated using the COSMIN taxonomy and were based on three cohorts from primary care with low back pain: The content validity cohort (N = 14) which participated in semi-structured interviews, the GLA:D® Back cohort (N = 272) and the test–retest cohort (N = 37) which both completed self-reported questionnaires. For construct validity and responsiveness, enablement was compared to disability (Oswestry Disability Index), back pain beliefs (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire), fear avoidance (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire—physical activity), mental health (SF-36), educational level and number of previous episodes of low back pain.

Results

The PEI-BP was found to have acceptable content validity, construct validity, reliability (internal consistency, test–retest reliability and measurement error) and responsiveness. The Smallest Detectable Change was 10.1 points illustrating that a patient would have to change more than 1/6 of the scale range for it to be a true change. A skewed distribution towards the high scores were found at baseline indicating a potentially problematic ceiling effect in the current population.

Conclusions

The PEI-BP can be considered a valid and reliable tool to measure enablement on people seeking care for non-specific LBP. Further testing of the PEI-BP in populations with more severe LBP is recommended.

Trial registration: Not applicable.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12955-021-01758-0.

The validity and reliability of the patient enablement instrument (PEI) after GP appointments in Finnish health care centres

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) in Finnish health care centre patients. A pilot study was conducted to assess the content validity of the PEI. A questionnaire study in three health care centres in Western Finland was performed in order to assess acceptability, construct validity, internal consistency, and measurement error of the instrument. A telephone interview 2 weeks after the appointment was performed to evaluate reproducibility.

RESULTS

The pilot study with 17 participants indicated good content validity of the PEI. In the questionnaire study, altogether 483 with a completed PEI score were included in the analyses. Factor analysis and item-scale correlations suggested high structural validity. The internal consistency of the instrument was high (Cronbach's α = 0.93). The PEI score diminished strongly over the two-week period.

CONCLUSIONS

The PEI has good content validity and acceptability, good construct validity, high internal consistency but low reproducibility. Thus, the PEI seems to be an applicable tool to measure patient enablement in Finnish primary health care.

Patient enablement after a consultation with a general practitioner-Explaining variation between countries, practices and patients

BACKGROUND

Patient enablement is a concept developed to measure quality in primary health care. The comparative analysis of patient enablement in an international context is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To explain variation in patient enablement between patients, general practitioners (GPs) and countries. To find independent variables associated with enablement.

DESIGN

We constructed multi-level logistic regression models encompassing variables from patient, GP and country levels. The proportions of explained variances at each level and odds ratios for independent variables were calculated.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A total of 7210 GPs and 58 930 patients in 31 countries were recruited through the Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe (QUALICOPC) study framework. In addition, data from the Primary Health Care Activity Monitor for Europe (PHAMEU) study and Hofstede's national cultural dimensions were combined with QUALICOPC data.

RESULTS

In the final model, 50.6% of the country variance and 18.4% of the practice variance could be explained. Cultural dimensions explained a major part of the variation between countries. Several patient-level and only a few practice-level variables showed statistically significant associations with patient enablement. Structural elements of the relevant health-care system showed no associations. From the 20 study hypotheses, eight were supported and four were partly supported.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

There are large differences in patient enablement between GPs and countries. Patient characteristics and patients' perceptions of consultation seem to have the strongest associations with patient enablement. When comparing patient-reported measures as an indicator of health-care system performance, researchers should be aware of the influence of cultural elements.

Measuring patient empowerment - A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review was to identify generic instruments measuring patient empowerment and related concepts and analyse the main content and psychometric properties of these instruments.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using empowerment and related concepts (enablement, activation, engagement, perceived control) as search terms. The main content of the instruments was analysed by classifying the subscales and items of the elements of empowerment into patient's capacities, patient's knowledge, patient's behaviour and support by others. Psychometric properties were analysed with the criteria of Terwee and colleagues (2007).

RESULTS

Thirteen instruments were identified; and out of them, five instruments covered all the four elements used to define of empowerment. Psychometric properties were variable; none of the instruments contained all the evaluated psychometric properties.

CONCLUSION

There are generic instruments measuring empowerment and its related concepts. The instruments were heterogeneous in structure and psychometric properties. Empowerment is more wide-ranging and multidimensional than its related concepts.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This review provides knowledge for healthcare professionals and researchers who want to support or evaluate patients' empowerment. With a generic instrument, it is possible to obtain comparable information from diverse patient groups. Further testing of psychometric properties of each instrument is recommended.

Factors affecting patient enablement in an Asian setting: a mixed methods study

INTRODUCTION

Patient-centred medical care has been rising in importance since the turn of the century. It entails treating patients in relation to their biopsychosocial outlook so as to support the management of their conditions. The extent to which a patient is enabled to acquire skills and knowledge can be measured with the Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) proposed by Howie and colleagues, and it has been noted to be more reflective of a good consultation compared to patient satisfaction scores. This study aimed to determine the level of patient enablement in the Singaporean context and the factors facilitating it.

METHODS

We conducted an embedded mixed method study with primary care patients in two phases: (a) a PEI questionnaire was completed by 150 patients; and (b) a qualitative approach using focused group discussions and individual interviews was used to explore factors associated with high enablement.

RESULTS

The mean PEI score was 4.5 ± 4.4, with significantly higher scores among patients attending specialised primary care clinics. Important physician factors were doctors' advice, attitude and relationship with the patient. Critical system factors included good continuity of care, workload and financial support, while patient factors included their beliefs, preparedness, inquisitiveness and trust, with considerable impact from the influence of community.

CONCLUSION

The PEI score in the Singaporean context is similar to that of other Asian contexts, but slightly higher than that reported in Western studies. Good doctor-patient relationships, efficient systems facilitating continuity of care, and motivated and informed patients all contribute to increased enablement.

Comparison of the Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) with two single-item measures among Finnish Health care centre patients

Background

The Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) is an established patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that reflects the quality of appointments with general practitioners (GPs). It is a six-item questionnaire administered to the patient immediately after a consultation. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a single-item measure could replace the PEI when measuring patient enablement among Finnish health care centre patients.

Methods

Two single-item measures, Q1 and Q2, were chosen for comparison with the PEI. Firstly, a pilot study with questionnaire testing and brief interviews with the respondents were performed in order to assess the content validity of the PEI and the single-item measures. Secondly, a questionnaire study after a single appointment with a GP was carried out in three health care centres in Western Finland in order to evaluate the construct and criterion validity of the single-item measures. A telephone interview was performed 2 weeks after the appointment in order to assess the test-retest reliability of the single-item measures. The sensitivity, specificity, and both positive and negative predictive values of Q1 and Q2 were calculated with different PEI score cut-off points.

Results

Altogether 483 patients with a completed PEI were included in the questionnaire study analyses. Altogether 149 and 175 patients had completed Q1 and Q2, respectively, both in the questionnaire and the telephone interview. The correlations between the PEI and Q1 and Q2 were 0.48 and 0.84, respectively. Both the single-item measures had a high sensitivity and a negative predictive value in relation to patients with lower PEI scores. The reliability coefficients were 0.24 for Q1 and 0.76 for Q2. The test-retest values of Q1, Q2, and the PEI were low.

Conclusions

Q2 seems to be a valid and reliable measure of patient enablement. Q1 seems to be less correlated with the PEI, but it also has a high negative predictive value in relation to low enablement scores.

The modified patient enablement instrument: a Portuguese cross-cultural adaptation, validity and reliability study

Enabling patients with asthma to obtain the knowledge, confidence and skills they need in order to assume a major role in the management of their disease is cost effective. It should be an integral part of any plan for long-term control of asthma. The modified Patient Enablement Instrument (mPEI) is an easily administered questionnaire that was adapted in the United Kingdom to measure patient enablement in asthma, but its applicability in Portugal is not known. Validity and reliability of questionnaires should be tested before use in settings different from those of the original version. The purpose of this study was to test the applicability of the mPEI to Portuguese asthma patients after translation and cross-cultural adaptation, and to verify the structural validity, internal consistency and reproducibility of the instrument. The mPEI was translated to Portuguese and back translated to English. Its content validity was assessed by a debriefing interview with 10 asthma patients. The translated instrument was then administered to a random sample of 142 patients with persistent asthma. Structural validity and internal consistency were assessed. For reproducibility analysis, 86 patients completed the instrument again 7 days later. Item-scale correlations and exploratory factor analysis were used to assess structural validity. Cronbach’s alpha was used to test internal consistency, and the intra-class correlation coefficient was used for the analysis of reproducibility. All items of the Portuguese version of the mPEI were found to be equivalent to the original English version. There were strong item-scale correlations that confirmed construct validity, with a one component structure and good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha >0.8) as well as high test–retest reliability (ICC=0.85). The mPEI showed sound psychometric properties for the evaluation of enablement in patients with asthma making it a reliable instrument for use in research and clinical practice in Portugal. Further studies are needed to confirm its responsiveness.

The impact of general practice nursing care on patient satisfaction and enablement in Australia: A mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

The numbers of nurses in general practice in Australia tripled between 2004 and 2012. However, evidence on whether nursing care in general practice improves patient outcomes is scarce. Although patient satisfaction and enablement have been examined extensively as outcomes of general practitioner care, there is little research into these outcomes from nursing care in general practice. The aim of this study was to examine the relationships between specific general practice characteristics and nurse consultation characteristics, and patient satisfaction and enablement METHODS: A mixed methods study examined a cross-section of patients from 21 general practices in the Australian Capital Territory. The Patient Enablement and Satisfaction Survey was distributed to 1665 patients who received nursing care between September 2013 and March 2014. Grounded theory methods were used to analyse interviews with staff and patients from these same practices. An integrated analysis of data from both components was conducted using multilevel mixed effect models.

RESULTS

Data from 678 completed patient surveys (response rate=42%) and 48 interviews with 16 nurses, 23 patients and 9 practice managers were analysed. Patients who had longer nurse consultations were more satisfied (OR=2.50, 95% CI: 1.43-4.35) and more enabled (OR=2.55, 95% CI: 1.45-4.50) than those who had shorter consultations. Patients who had continuity of care with the same general practice nurse were more satisfied (OR=2.31, 95% CI: 1.33-4.00) than those who consulted with a nurse they had never met before. Patients who attended practices where nurses worked with broad scopes of practice and high levels of autonomy were more satisfied (OR=1.76, 95% CI: 1.09-2.82) and more enabled (OR=2.56, 95% CI: 1.40-4.68) than patients who attended practices where nurses worked with narrow scopes of practice and low levels of autonomy. Patients who received nursing care for the management of chronic conditions (OR=2.64, 95% CI: 1.32-5.30) were more enabled than those receiving preventive health care.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides the first evidence of the importance of continuity of general practice nurse care, adequate time in general practice nurse consultations, and broad scopes of nursing practice and autonomy for patient satisfaction and enablement. The findings of this study provide evidence of the true value of enhanced nursing roles in general practice. They demonstrate that when the vision for improved coordination and multidisciplinary primary health care, including expanded roles of nurses, is implemented, high quality patient outcomes can be achieved.

An Integrative Review of Enablement in Primary Health Care

OBJECTIVES

To review how enablement is conceptualized and practiced in primary health care and to explore the factors that influence patient enablement in this setting.

METHOD

A narrative integrative literature review was undertaken.

RESULTS

Twenty-four articles specifically relating to enablement in primary health care were identified. Three literature reviews, 4 qualitative studies, and 17 quantitative studies were included in the analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In the primary health care setting, the concept of enablement is well defined as an outcome measure of quality. The literature exploring the practice of enablement is sparse, but 2 randomized controlled trials suggest enablement is linked to better outcomes for patients with asthma and diabetes. Primary factors influencing enablement included the practitioners' open communication style, the degree to which the practitioner is patient centered, and longer consultations. Other factors found to be associated with enablement were the presenting health issue, general state of health, ethnicity, the patient's own coping strategies and degree of independence, and socioeconomic status. The association between enablement and patients' expectations and satisfaction is less clear. The majority of research on enablement was carried out among general practitioners. Further research into the degree to which patients are enabled by a wider range of health care providers is needed. Additional qualitative research would provide a deeper understanding of the attributes of enablement in the primary health care setting.

Validity and reliability of the Japanese version of the CARE measure in a general medicine outpatient setting

BACKGROUND

Empathy is an important attribute in medicine, influencing both the process and outcome of consultations. However, there are no validated tools available in Japan to gather patient feedback on physicians' empathy. The Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure developed in the UK is widely used internationally.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the psychometric properties of a Japanese version of the CARE Measure.

METHOD

Following two cycles of translation and back translation, the Japanese CARE Measure was completed by 317 patients in a primary medical care clinic in Japan. Tests of internal reliability and validity included Cronbach's alpha, item-total correlations and factor analysis. Predicted associations between CARE Measure score and other variables were assessed by Spearman's rho.

RESULTS

Low numbers of missing values (8.2-9.8%) and 'not applicable' responses (0-1.3%) suggested high acceptability and face validity of the Japanese CARE Measure. Internal reliability was high (Cronbach's alpha 0.984) and was reduced by the removal of any of 10 items. High corrected item-total correlations (0.897-0.946) suggested homogeneity. Factor analysis showed a single solution with high item loadings (0.917-0.957). Construct validity was supported by a significant relationship (Spearman's rho 0.74, P < 0.001) with overall satisfaction with the consultation.

CONCLUSION

The Japanese CARE Measure appears to be valid and reliable in a primary medical care setting. Further work is required to determine its ability to discriminate between doctors.

Preferences, predictions and patient enablement: a preliminary study

BACKGROUND

The widely used patient enablement instrument (PEI) is sometimes contrasted against measures of patient satisfaction as being a more objective measure of consultation quality, in that it is less likely to be positively influenced by fulfilling pre-existing expectations for specific consultation outcomes (such as prescriptions or referrals). However the relationship between expectation and enablement is underexplored, as is the relationship between 'expectation' understood as a patient preference for outcome, and patient prediction of outcome. The aims of the study are to 1) assess the feasibility of measuring the relationship between expectation fulfilment and patient enablement, and 2) measure the difference (if any) between expectation understood as preference, and expectation understood as prediction.

METHODS

A questionnaire study was carried out on 67 patients attending three General Practices in the Australian Capital Territory. Patient preferences and predictions for a range of possible outcomes were recorded prior to the consultation. PEI and the actual outcomes of the consultation were recorded at the conclusion of the consultation. Data analysis compared expectation fulfilment as concordance between the preferred, predicted, and actual outcomes, with the PEI as a dependant variable.

RESULTS

No statistically significant relationship was found between either preference-outcome concordance and PEI, or prediction-outcome concordance. Statistically insignificant trends in both cases ran counter to expectations; i.e. with PEI (weakly) positively correlated with greater discordance. The degree of concordance between preferred outcomes and predicted outcomes was less than the concordance between either preferred outcomes and actual outcomes, or predicted outcomes and actual outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The relationship between expectation fulfilment and enablement remains uncertain, whether expectation is measured as stated preferences for specific outcomes, or the predictions made regarding receiving such outcomes. However the lack of agreement between these two senses of 'patient expectation' suggests that explicitly demarcating these concepts during study design is strongly advisable.