Aim The Self‐Care Self‐Efficacy Scale (SCSES) was newly developed as a self‐report measure for self‐care self‐efficacy for chronic illness. This study investigated its measurement equivalence (ME) in different cultural groups, including United States, China (Hong Kong), Italy, and Brazil. Design A multi‐national study for cross‐cultural validation of the Scale. Methods From January 2015 ‐ December 2018, investigators recruited 957 patients (United State: 200; Hong Kong: 300; Italy: 285; and Brazil: 142) with chronic illness from inpatient and outpatient settings. The SCSES was administered and clinical and demographic data were collected from participants. Based on the Meredith framework, multi‐group confirmatory factor analysis evaluated the configural, metric, scalar, and strict invariance of the scale across the four populations through a series of nested models, with evaluation of reliability and coherence of the factor solution. Results The mean ages of the groups ranged from 65–77 years, 56.4% was male. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients of the single‐factor SCSES were 0.93, 0.89, 0.92, and 0.90 for the United States, China (Hong Kong), Italy, and Brazil, respectively. Three of the four levels of ME were partially or totally supported. The highest level achieved was partial scalar invariance level (χ2 [52] = 313.4, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.067; 95% CI = 0.056–0.077; CFI = 0.966; TLI = 0.960, SRMR = 0.080). Conclusion Patients from the four countries shared the same philosophical orientation towards scale items, although some of the items contributed differently to represent the concept and participants shared the same schemata for score interpretation. Impact Self‐efficacy is important in producing effective and sustainable self‐care behavioural changes. Cultural ideation shapes the ways individuals interpret and report their self‐care self‐efficacy. The study findings support cross‐cultural and cross‐national utility of the SCSES for research on self‐care across United States, China (Hong Kong), Italy, and Brazil.

No abstract

AimsTo investigate the relationship between depression and self‐care behaviours in older individuals with multimorbidity.DesignCross‐sectional study. Data were collected between April 2017 – June 2019.MethodsPatients were enrolled from community and outpatient settings and included if they were ≥65 years, affected by heart failure, diabetes mellitus or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and at least another chronic condition. They were excluded if they had dementia and/or cancer. Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 was used to measure depression and Self‐Care of Chronic Illness Inventory was used to measure self‐care maintenance, monitoring, and management. The relationship between depression and self‐care was evaluated by performing two sets of univariate analyses, followed by multivariate and step‐down analyses. The second set was performed to control for the number of chronic conditions, age, and cognitive function.ResultsThe sample (N = 366) was mostly female (54.2%), with a mean age of 76.4 years. Most participants (65.6%) had mild to very severe depressive symptoms. Preliminary analysis indicated a significant negative association between depression and self‐care maintenance and monitoring and a significant negative association between depression and multivariate self‐care. Step‐down analysis showed that self‐care maintenance was the only dimension negatively associated with depression, even after controlling for the number of chronic conditions, age, and cognitive function.ConclusionIn multimorbid populations, depression is more likely to be associated with self‐care maintenance than the other self‐care dimensions. Therefore, self‐care maintenance behaviours (e.g., physical activity and medication adherence) should be prioritized in assessment and focused on when developing interventions targeting depressed older adults with multimorbidity.ImpactThe results of this study may help guide clinical practice. In patients with depressive symptoms, self‐care maintenance behaviours should be assessed first, as a potential first indicator of poor self‐care.

The results of this study will inform clinical practice and research by identifying variables that are modifiable and therefore amenable to interventions.

No abstract