Top

BMC Health Services Research

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Care | Research article

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

Authors: Elina Tolvanen, Tuomas H. Koskela, Elise Kosunen

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2019

Abstract

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.

Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 1998;2(14)i–74.

Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ. 2013;346.CrossRef

Valtioneuvosto (Finnish Government). Maakunta- ja sote-uudistus. Regional government, health and social services reform. 2018. https://alueuudistus.fi/en/freedom-of-choice-for-customers.

Patrician PA. Single-item graphic representational scales. Nurs Res. 2004;53:347–52.CrossRef

Ahlstrom L, Grimby-Ekman A, Hagberg M, Dellve L. The work ability index and single-item question: associations with sick leave, symptoms, and health--a prospective study of women on long-term sick leave. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2010;36:404–12. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.2917.CrossRefPubMed

Conrad R, Mücke M, Marinova M, Burghardt A, Stieber C, Cuhls H, et al. Measurement of quality of life in palliative care: evidence for criterion-oriented validity of a single-item approach. J Palliat Med. 2017;20:604–10. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2016.0218.CrossRefPubMed

Cunny KA, Perri M. Single-item vs multiple-item measures of health-related quality of life. Psychol Rep. 1991;69:127–30. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1991.69.1.127.CrossRefPubMed

Wanous JP, Hudy MJ. Single-item reliability: a replication and extension. Organ Res Methods. 2001;4:361–75.CrossRef

Howie JG, Heaney DJ, Maxwell M. Measuring quality in general practice. Pilot study of a needs, process and outcome measure. Occas Pap R Coll Gen Pract. 1997;:i–xii, 1–32.

10.

Howie JGR, Heaney DJ, Maxwell M, Walker JJ. A comparison of a patient enablement instrument (PEI) against two established satisfaction scales as an outcome measure of primary care consultations. Fam Pract. 1998;15:165–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/15.2.165.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Mead N, Bower P, Hann M. The impact of general practitioners’ patient-centredness on patients’ post-consultation satisfaction and enablement. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55:283–99.CrossRef

12.

Howie JGR, Heaney DJ, Maxwell M, Walker JJ, Freeman GK, Rai H. Quality at general practice consultations: cross sectional survey. BMJ. 1999;319:738–43.CrossRef

13.

Mead N, Bower P, Roland M. Factors associated with enablement in general practice: cross-sectional study using routinely-collected data. Br J Gen Pract. 2008;58:346–52.CrossRef

14.

Ozvacić Adzić Z, Katić M, Kern J, Lazić D, Cerovecki Nekić V, Soldo D. Patient, physician, and practice characteristics related to patient enablement in general practice in Croatia: cross-sectional survey study. Croat Med J. 2008;49:813–23.CrossRef

15.

Pawlikowska TRB, Nowak PR, Szumilo-Grzesik W, Walker JJ. Primary care reform: a pilot study to test the evaluative potential of the patient enablement instrument in Poland. Fam Pr. 2002;19:197–201.CrossRef

16.

Rööst M, Zielinski A, Petersson C, Strandberg EL. Reliability and applicability of the patient enablement instrument (PEI) in a Swedish general practice setting. BMC Fam Pract. 2015;16(1).

17.

Lam CLK, Yuen NYK, Mercer SW, Wong W. A pilot study on the validity and reliability of the patient enablement instrument (PEI) in a Chinese population. Fam Pract. 2010;27:395–403.CrossRef

18.

Hudon C, Fortin M, Rossignol F, Bernier S, Poitras M-E. The patient enablement instrument-French version in a family practice setting: a reliability study. BMC Fam Pract. 2011;12:71. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-12-71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Kurosawa S, Matsushima M, Fujinuma Y, Hayashi D, Noro I, Kanaya T, et al. Two principal components, coping and independence, comprise patient enablement in Japan: cross sectional study in Tohoku area. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2012;227:97–104.CrossRef

20.

Frost J, Currie MJ, Cruickshank M. An integrative review of enablement in primary health care. Los Angeles: SAGE PublicationsSage CA; 2015. https://doi.org/10.1177/2150131915598373.CrossRef

21.

Tolvanen E, Koskela TH, Helminen M, Kosunen E. Patient enablement after a single appointment with a GP: analysis of finnish QUALICOPC data. J Prim Care Community Heal. 2017;8(4)213–20.CrossRef

22.

Pawlikowska T, Zhang W, Griffiths F, van Dalen J, van der Vleuten C. Verbal and non-verbal behavior of doctors and patients in primary care consultations - how this relates to patient enablement. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86:70–6.CrossRef

23.

Mercer SW, Jani BD, Maxwell M, Wong SYS, Watt GCM. Patient enablement requires physician empathy: a cross-sectional study of general practice consultations in areas of high and low socioeconomic deprivation in Scotland. BMC Fam Pract. 2012;13.

24.

Mercer SW, Neumann M, Wirtz M, Fitzpatrick B, Vojt G. General practitioner empathy, patient enablement, and patient-reported outcomes in primary care in an area of high socio-economic deprivation in Scotland-a pilot prospective study using structural equation modeling. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73:240–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.022.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Pawlikowska TRB, Walker JJ, Nowak PR, Szumilo-Grzesik W. Patient involvement in assessing consultation quality: a quantitative study of the patient enablement instrument in Poland. Health Expect. 2010;13:13–23.CrossRef

26.

Freeman GK, Rai H, Walker JJ, Howie JGR, Heaney DJ, Maxwell M. Non-English speakers consulting with the GP in their own language: a cross-sectional survey. Br J Gen Pract. 2002;52:36–8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1314212/.PubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Denley J, Rao JN, Stewart A. How do patients rate the quality of consultations in primary care? A patient enablement survey from practices within a primary care trust in Sandwell. Qual Prim Care. 2003;11:181–7.

28.

Kuusela M. Yleislääkärin vastaanottotapahtuma - näkökulmia laatuun. University of Turku; 2014. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-29-5688-3.

29.

Wensing M, Wetzels R, Hermsen J, Baker R. Do elderly patients feel more enabled if they had been actively involved in primary care consultations? Patient Educ Couns. 2007;68:265–9.CrossRef

30.

Schäfer WL, Boerma WG, Kringos DS, De Maeseneer J, Gress S, Heinemann S, et al. Study protocol: QUALICOPC, a multi-country study evaluating quality, costs and equity in primary care. BMC Fam Pract. 2011;12(115).

31.

Cohidon C, Wild P, Senn N. Coping better with health problems after a visit to the family physician: associations with patients and physicians characteristics. BMC Fam Pract. 2018;19.

32.

Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos. Opas toimintakyvyn mittarin arviointiin TOIMIA-verkostossa (1.0). 2014. https://thl.fi/documents/974257/1449823/Mittariopas_VALMIS_090614+(2).pdf/b53595b9-15b8-4fa3-8765-23cd9221de8f.

33.

Edwards A, Elwyn G, Hood K, Atwell C, Robling M, Houston H, et al. Patient-based outcome results from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice. Fam Pract. 2004;21:347–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmh402.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Murphy M, Hollinghurst S, Salisbury C. Patient understanding of two commonly used patient reported outcome measures for primary care: a cognitive interview study. BMC Fam Pract. 2018;19:162.CrossRef

35.

Ross M. Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Psychol Rev. 1989;96:341–57.CrossRef

36.

Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos THL. Perusterveydenhuolto 2014. Tilastoraportti - statistical report. 2014. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2016051011549.

37.

Schäfer WLA, Boerma WGW, Kringos DS, De Ryck E, Greß S, Heinemann S, et al. Measures of quality, costs and equity in primary health care instruments developed to analyse and compare primary care in 35 countries. Qual Prim Care. 2013;21:67–79.PubMed

38.

Kangaspunta V, Koskela T, Soini E, Ryynänen O-P. Potilaiden arvioon terveyskeskuskäynnin hyödyistä vaikuttavat tekijät. Suom Lääkäril. 2014;69:1654–9.

Title: Comparison of the Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) with two single-item measures among Finnish Health care centre patients
Authors: Elina Tolvanen
Tuomas H. Koskela
Elise Kosunen
Publication date: 01-12-2019
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keyword: Care
Published in: BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4182-2

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

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

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Increase of catastrophic health expenditure while it does not have socio-economic anymore; finding from a district on Tehran after recent extensive health sector reform

Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Greek version of the Active Life with Asthma (Gr-ALMA) review: a descriptive methodological study

Evaluation of the impact of a brief educational message on clinicians’ awareness of risks of ionising-radiation exposure in imaging investigations: a pilot pre-post intervention study

Correction to: Responding to policy makers’ evaluation needs: combining experimental and quasi-experimental approaches to estimate the impact of performance based financing in Burkina Faso

Cross verification of prescribing trends through loop evaluation of physicians, patients and medical store personnel

Meeting unmet needs following minor stroke: the SUN randomised controlled trial protocol