Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Published in: Annals of Behavioral Medicine 1/2015

01-02-2015 | Original Article

Evaluating the Structure of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) Survey from the Patient’s Perspective

Authors: Jiaquan Fan, PhD, Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, Jeanette Y. Ziegenfuss, PhD, Steven A. Smith, MD, Bijan J. Borah, PhD, James R. Deming, MD, Victor M. Montori, MD, Nilay D. Shah, PhD

Published in: Annals of Behavioral Medicine | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) survey is a widely used instrument to assess the patient experience with healthcare delivery.

Purpose

This study aims to evaluate the factorial structure of PACIC from the patient perspective.

Methods

A postal survey was mailed to 4,796 randomly selected adults with diabetes from 34 primary care clinics. Internal consistencies of PACIC subscales were assessed by Cronhach’s α. Factorial structure was evaluated by confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses.

Results

Based on responses of 2,055 patients (43 % response rate), exploratory factor analysis discerned a 4-factor, not 5-factor, model dominated by patient evaluation of healthcare services (explaining 74 % of the variance). The other 3 factors addressed patient involvement (goal setting, participating in the healthcare team) and social support for self-management.

Conclusions

The underlying factorial structure of PACIC, which reflects the patient perspective, is dynamic, patient-centered, and differs from the original 5-factor model that was more aligned with views of healthcare delivery stakeholders.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Alwan A, MacLean DR, Riley LM, et al. Monitoring and surveillance of chronic non-communicable diseases: Progress and capacity in high-burden countries. Lancet. 2010; 376: 1861-1868.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Global status report on noncommunicable diseases 2010. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2011, 9–16.
3.
Zhang P, Zhang X, Brown J, et al. Global healthcare expenditure on diabetes for 2010 and 2030. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2010; 87: 293-301.CrossRefPubMed
4.
5.
Wagner EH. Chronic disease management: What will it take to improve care for chronic illness? Eff Clin Pract ECP. 1998; 1: 2-4.
6.
Wagner EH, Austin BT, Davis C, et al. Improving chronic illness care: Translating evidence into action. Health Aff. 2001; 20: 64-78.CrossRef
7.
Glasgow RE, Wagner EH, Schaefer J, et al. Development and validation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC). Med Care. 2005; 43: 436-444.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Bonomi AE, Wagner EH, Glasgow RE, VonKorff M. Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC): A practical tool to measure quality improvement. Health Serv Res. 2002; 37: 791-820.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
9.
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: 2655-2661.CrossRefPubMed
10.
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: 31-36.CrossRef
11.
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: 806-813.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Schmittdiel J, Mosen DM, Glasgow RE, et al. Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) and improved patient-centered outcomes for chronic conditions. J Gen Intern Med. 2008; 23: 77-80.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
13.
Taggart J, Chan B, Jayasinghe UW, et al. Patients Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) in two Australian studies: Structure and utility. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011; 17: 215-221.CrossRefPubMed
14.
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.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
15.
Aragones A, Schaefer EW, Stevens D, et al. Validation of the Spanish translation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) survey. Preventing Chronic Dis. 2008; 5: A113.
16.
Cramm JM, Nieboer AP. Factorial validation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) and PACIC short version (PACIC-S) among cardiovascular disease patients in the Netherlands. Health Qual Life Outcome. 2012; 10: 104.CrossRef
17.
Rick J, Rowe K, Hann M, et al. Psychometric properties of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care measure: Acceptability, reliability and validity in United Kingdom patients with long-term conditions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012; 12: 293.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
18.
Goetz K, Freund T, Gensichen J, et al. Adaptation and psychometric properties of the PACIC short form. Am J Manag Care. 2012; 18: e55-e60.PubMed
19.
Drewes HW, de Jong-van Til JT, Struijs JN, et al. Measuring chronic care management experience of patients with diabetes: PACIC and PACIC+ validation. Int J Integr Care. 2012; 12: e194.PubMedCentralPubMed
20.
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: 307-312.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Gugiu C, Coryn CL, Applegate B. Structure and measurement properties of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care instrument. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010; 16: 509-516.PubMed
22.
Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 1999; 6: 1-55.CrossRef
23.
Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997; 50: 1129-1136.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Curtin R, Presser S, Singer E. Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century. Publ Opin Q. 2005; 69: 87-98.CrossRef
25.
Groves RM. Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Publ Opin Q. 2006; 70: 646-675.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Evaluating the Structure of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) Survey from the Patient’s Perspective
Authors
Jiaquan Fan, PhD
Rozalina G. McCoy, MD
Jeanette Y. Ziegenfuss, PhD
Steven A. Smith, MD
Bijan J. Borah, PhD
James R. Deming, MD
Victor M. Montori, MD
Nilay D. Shah, PhD
Publication date
01-02-2015
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Annals of Behavioral Medicine / Issue 1/2015
Print ISSN: 0883-6612
Electronic ISSN: 1532-4796
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-014-9638-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Annals of Behavioral Medicine 1/2015 Go to the issue

Invited Commentary

The Challenge of Stimulus Control: a Comment on Poelman et al.

Original Article

Selective Attention and Fear of Cancer Recurrence in Breast Cancer Survivors

Original Article

Angina Symptom Burden Associated with Depression Status Among Veterans with Ischemic Heart Disease

Brief Report

Interacting Effects of Receiving Social Control and Social Support During Smoking Cessation

Original Article

Predictors of Adherence to Glaucoma Treatment in a Multisite Study

Invited Commentary

Reminder Systems, Not Education, Improve Glaucoma Adherence: a Comment on Cook et al.