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.

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.

Assessing Patient Activation among High-Need, High-Cost Patients in Urban Safety Net Care Settings

We sought to examine the literature using the Patient Activation Measure (PAM) or the Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) with high-need, high-cost (HNHC) patients receiving care in urban safety net settings. Urban safety net care management programs serve low-income, racially/ethnically diverse patients living with multiple chronic conditions. Although many care management programs track patient progress with the PAM or the PEI, it is not clear whether the PAM or the PEI is an effective and appropriate tool for HNHC patients receiving care in urban safety net settings in the United States. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and PsycINFO for articles published between 2004 and 2015 that used the PAM and between 1998 and 2015 that used the PEI. The search was limited to English-language articles conducted in the United States and published in peer-reviewed journals. To assess the utility of the PAM and the PEI in urban safety net care settings, we defined a HNHC patient sample as racially/ethnically diverse, low socioeconomic status (SES), and multimorbid. One hundred fourteen articles used the PAM. All articles using the PEI were conducted outside the U.S. and therefore were excluded. Nine PAM studies (8%) included participants similar to those receiving care in urban safety net settings, three of which were longitudinal. Two of the three longitudinal studies reported positive changes following interventions. Our results indicate that research on patient activation is not commonly conducted on racially and ethnically diverse, low SES, and multimorbid patients; therefore, there are few opportunities to assess the appropriateness of the PAM in such populations. Investigators expressed concerns with the potential unreliability and inappropriate nature of the PAM on multimorbid, older, and low-literacy patients. Thus, the PAM may not be able to accurately assess patient progress among HNHC patients receiving care in urban safety net settings. Assessing progress in the urban safety net care setting requires measures that account for the social and structural challenges and competing demands of HNHC patients.