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

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2014

Open Access 01-12-2014 | Research article

Adaptation and validation of the patient assessment of chronic illness care in the French context

Authors: Nicolas Krucien, Marc Le Vaillant, Nathalie Pelletier-Fleury

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Chronic diseases are major causes of disability worldwide with rising prevalence. Most patients suffering from chronic conditions do not always receive optimal care. The Chronic Care Model (CCM) has been developed to help general practitioners making quality improvements. The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) questionnaire was increasingly used in several countries to appraise the implementation of the CCM from the patients’ perspective. The objective of this study was to adapt the PACIC questionnaire in the French context and to test the validity of this adaptation in a sample of patients with multiple chronic conditions.

Methods

The PACIC was translated into French language using a forward/backward procedure. The French version was validated using a sample of 150 patients treated for obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) and having multiple chronic co-morbidities. Several forms of validity were analysed: content; face; construct; and internal consistency. The construct validity was investigated with an exploratory factorial analysis.

Results

The French-version of the PACIC consisted in 18 items, after merging two pairs of items due to redundancy. The high number of items exhibiting floor/ceiling effects and the non-normality of the ratings suggested that a 5-points rating scale was somewhat inappropriate to assess the patients’ experience of care. The construct validity of the French-PACIC was verified and resulted in a bi-dimensional structure. Overall this structure showed a high level of internal consistency. The PACIC score appeared to be significantly related to the age and self-reported health of the patients.

Conclusions

A French-version of the PACIC questionnaire is now available to evaluate the patients’ experience of care and to monitor the quality improvements realised by the medical structures. This study also pointed out some methodological issues about the PACIC questionnaire, related to the format of the rating scale and to the structure of the questionnaire.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
World Health Organization: The Global Strategy On Diet, Physical Activity And Health. 2004, Geneva
2.
Païta M, Weill A: Les personnes en affection de longue durée au 31 décembre 2008. Points de repère. 2009, 27: 1-12.
3.
Vallier N, Salavane B, Weill A: Les aspects économiques des affections de longue durée. Actualité et dossier en santé publique. 2007, 59: 30-37.
4.
McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, Keesey J, Hicks J, DeCristofaro A, Kerr EA: The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003, 348: 2635-2645.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Smith NL, Savage PJ, Heckbert SR, Barzilay JI, Bittner VA, Kuller LH, Psaty BM: Glucose, blood pressure, and lipid control in older people with and without diabetes mellitus: the Cardiovascular Health Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002, 50: 416-423.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Institute of Medicine: Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. 2001, Washington
7.
Bodenheimer T, Wagner EH, Grumbach K: Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness. J Am Med Assoc. 2002, 288: 1775-1779.CrossRef
8.
Bodenheimer T, Wagner EH, Grumbach K: Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness: the chronic care model, part 2. J Am Med Assoc. 2002, 288: 1909-1914.CrossRef
9.
Woodwell DA, Cherry DK: National ambulatory medical care survey: 2002 summary. Adv Data Vital Health Stat. 2004, 26: 1-44.
10.
Nolte E, McKee M, Knai C: Managing Chronic Conditions: Experience in Eight Countries. 2008, Copenhagen
11.
Wagner EH, Austin BT, Davis C, Hindmarsh M, Schaefer J, Bonomi A: Improving chronic illness care: translating evidence into action. Health Aff. 2001, 20: 64-78.CrossRef
12.
Bodenheimer T: Interventions to improve chronic illness care: evaluating their effectiveness. Dis Manag. 2003, 6: 63-71.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Coleman K, Austin BT, Brach C, Wagner EH: Evidence on the chronic care model in the new millennium. Health Aff. 2009, 28: 75-85.CrossRef
14.
Tsai AC, Morton SC, Mangione CM, Keeler EB: A meta-analysis of interventions to improve care for chronic illnesses. Am J Manage Care. 2005, 11: 478-488.
15.
Vargas RB, Mangione CM, Asch S, Keesey J, Rosen M, Schonlau M, Keeler EB: Can a chronic care model collaborative reduce heart disease risk in patients with diabetes?. J Gen Intern Med. 2007, 22: 215-222.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Adams SG, Smith PK, Allan PF, Anzueto A, Pugh JA, Cornell JE: Systematic review of the chronic care model in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease prevention and management. Arch Intern Med. 2007, 167: 551-561.CrossRefPubMed
17.
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
18.
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
19.
Gugiu PC, Coryn CL, Clark R, Kuehn A: Development of the Short-version of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) instrument. Chronic Illn. 2009, 2009 (5): 268-276.CrossRef
20.
Hatcher L: A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS System for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. 1994, Cary: SAS Institute, Inc, 588.
21.
Costello AB, Osborne JW: Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2005, 10: 1-9.
22.
MacCallum RC, Widaman KF, Zhang S, Hong S: Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods. 1999, 4: 84-99.CrossRef
23.
Bower P, Roland MO: Bias in patient assessments of general practice: general practice assessment survey scores in surgery and postal responders. The British Journal of General Practice. 2003, 53: 126-128.PubMedPubMedCentral
24.
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: 436-444.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Rosemann T, Laux G, Szecsenyi J, Grol R: The Chronic Care Model: congruency and predictors among primary care patients with osteoarthritis. Qual Safety Health Care. 2008, 17: 442-446.CrossRef
26.
Mackey K, Parchman ML, Leykum LK, Lanham HJ, Noël PH, Zeber JE: Impact of the Chronic Care Model on medication adherence when patients perceive cost as a barrier. Prim Care Diabetes. 2012, 6: 137-142.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Aragones A, Schaefer EW, Stevens D, Gourevitch MN, Glasgow RE, Shah NR: Validation of the Spanish translation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) survey. Prev Chronic Dis. 2008, 5: 1-10.
28.
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
29.
Edwards NC: Translating written material for community health research and service delivery: guidelines to enhance the process. Can J Public Health. 1994, 85: 67-70.PubMed
30.
Holden RB: Face validity. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology. Edited by: Weiner IB, Craighead WE. 2010, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 637-638. 4
31.
Muthén B, du Toit SHC, Spisic D: Robust inference using weighted least squares and quadratic estimating equations in latent variable modeling with categorical and continuous outcomes. Psychometrika. 1997, 1: 1-49.
32.
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS: Using Multivariate Statistics. 2006, Boston: Pearson, 1-1108. 5
33.
34.
MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM: Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods. 1996, 1: 130-149.CrossRef
35.
Zumbo BD, Gadermann AM, Zeisser C: Ordinal versions of coefficient alpha and theta for Likert rating scales. J Mod Appl Stat Methods. 2007, 6: 21-29.
36.
37.
Maindal HT, Sokolowski I, Vedsted P: Adaptation, data quality and confirmatory factor analysis of the Danish version of the PACIC questionnaire. Eur J Public Health. 2012, 22: 31-36.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Cramm JM, Nieboer AP: The chronic care model: congruency and predictors among patients with cardiovascular diseases and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the Netherlands. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012, 12: 1-6.CrossRef
39.
Rick J, Rowe K, Hann M, Sibbald B, Reeves D, Roland M, Bower P: 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: 1-34.CrossRef
40.
McIntosh CN: Examining the Factorial Validity of Selected Modules for the Canadian Survey of Experiences With Primary Health Care. 2008, Health Research Working Paper Series
41.
Wensing M, ven 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: 1-6.CrossRef
42.
Taggart J, Chan B, Jayasinghe UW, Christl B, Proudfoot J, Crookes P, Beilby J, Black B, Harris MF: Patients Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) in two Australian studies: structure and utility. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011, 17: 215-221.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Wagner EH, Glasgow RE, Davis C, Bonomi AE, Provast L, McCulloch D, Carver P, Sixta C: Quality improvement in chronic illness care: a collaborative approach. Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement. 2001, 27: 63-80.PubMed
44.
Vrijhoef HJ, Berbee R, Wagner EH, Steuten LM: Quality of integrated chronic care measured by patient survey: identification, selection and application of most appropriate instruments. Health Expect. 2009, 12: 417-429.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Szecsenyi J, Rosemann T, Joos S, Peters-Klimm F, Miksch A: German diabetes disease management programs are appropriate for restructuring care according to the chronic care model: an evaluation with the patient assessment of chronic illness care instrument. Diabetes Care. 2008, 31: 1150-1154.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Schmittdiel J, Mosen DM, Glasgow RE, Hibbard J, Remmers C, Bellows J: Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) and improved patient-centered outcomes for chronic conditions. J Gen Intern Med. 2008, 23: 77-80.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Ludt S, Lieshout J, Campbell SM, Rochon J, Ose D, Freund T, Wensing M, Szecsenyi J: Identifying factors associated with experiences of coronary heart disease patients receiving structured chronic care and counselling in European primary care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012, 12: 1-21.CrossRef
48.
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 Outcomes. 2012, 10: 1-7.CrossRef
49.
Cramm JM, Nieboer AP: Development and validation of the older patient assessment of chronic illness care (O-PACIC) scale after hospitalization. Soc Indic Res. 2013, doi:10.1007/s11205-013-0314-y
50.
Cramm JM, Nieboer AP: The Relationship between self-management abilities, quality of chronic care delivery and well-being among patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in the Netherlands. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2013, 8: 209-214.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
51.
Cramm JM, Rutten- van Mölken MPMH, Nieboer AP: The potential for integrated care programmes to improve quality of care as assessed by patients with COPD: early results from a real-world implementation study in The Netherlands. Int J Integr Care. 2012, 12: 1-7.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Adaptation and validation of the patient assessment of chronic illness care in the French context
Authors
Nicolas Krucien
Marc Le Vaillant
Nathalie Pelletier-Fleury
Publication date
01-12-2014
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2014
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-269

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

BMC Health Services Research 1/2014 Go to the issue

Research article

Nurses’ and community support workers’ experience of telehealth: a longitudinal case study

Research article

Health service barriers to HIV testing and counseling among pregnant women attending Antenatal Clinic; a cross-sectional study

Study protocol

Social networks of health care providers and patients in cardiovascular risk management: a study protocol

Research article

Efficiency of antenatal care and childbirth services in selected primary health care facilities in rural Tanzania: a cross-sectional study

Research article

Measuring progress with clinical governance development in New Zealand: perceptions of senior doctors in 2010 and 2012

Research article

Implementing electronic health records in hospitals: a systematic literature review