Patients Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) in two Australian studies: structure and utility

Taggart, Jane; Chan, Bibiana; Jayasinghe, Upali W; Christl, Bettina; Proudfoot, Judy; Crookes, Patrick A; Beilby, Justin; Black, Deborah; Harris, Mark

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01423.x

Cited by 39 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As in our study, an alternative approach consisted in using an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to emerge the number of dimensions from the data. In the literature this approach has been used in 5 studies, with 2 studies identifying 5 dimensions [25,41] and the 3 others studies identifying 1 or 2 dimensions [28,42]. Our 2-dimension structure of the PACIC is more closely related to these last validation studies which included items in more general dimensions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These results are partly in line with the literature. In terms of self-reported health, 2 studies have previously investigated the relationship with the PACIC score(s) and concluded to significance [37,42]. In terms of age, the evidence is mixed: in the 9 studies which tested the relationship with PACIC score, only 3 showed a significant result [38,39].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Krucien

Vaillant

Pelletier‐Fleury

2014

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundChronic 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsA 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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Krucien

Vaillant

Pelletier‐Fleury

2014

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We chose to use the PACIC instrument among others because an Australian study concluded that it was a feasible instrument for comparing patients’ assessment of the quality of care in those situations where they interact with the healthcare system, especially where emphasis is given to self-management [45]. Furthermore, Vrijhoef concluded that the PACIC instrument is the most appropriate instrument among the existing generic instruments that measure patients’ experience of their integrated care for chronic conditions [46].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient-experienced effect of an active implementation of a disease management programme for COPD – a randomised trial

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPeople living with chronic disease currently account for the majority of the total healthcare costs. The Central Denmark Region implemented a disease management programme (DMP) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in 2008. This presented an opportunity to examine the effect of an evidence-based, planned and proactive implementation of a DMP compared to the usual implementation strategy.MethodsWe performed a block- and cluster-randomised controlled trial with two groups and an extra external control group. The primary outcome was patients’ assessment of their care after using an active implementation model for a DMP for COPD measured with the Patient-Assessment-of-Chronic-Illness-Care (PACIC) instrument. At baseline, questionnaires were sent to 2,895 patients identified by an algorithm based on health registry data on lung-related contacts to the healthcare system. Patients were asked to confirm or refute their diagnosis of COPD. Of those who responded, 1,445 (72.8%) confirmed their diagnosis. PACIC data were collected at baseline and at a 12-month follow-up for 744 (51.1%) patients.ResultsComparing the three groups after the implementation of the DMP, we found a statistically significantly higher change in the PACIC score in the intervention group than in the control groups. No statistically significant differences were found between the control and the external control groups in any of the dimensions.ConclusionsReinforcing the role of general practice as coordinator for care-and self-management-support with an active implementation of a DMP for COPD made patients score higher on the PACIC instrument, which indicates a better experience of the received healthcare.Trial registrationNCT01228708.

show abstract

“…Comparison with existing literature The mean PACIC total was 2.4, compared with means of 2.6 in patients in US primary care, 26 3.3 in primary care patients with depression in Germany, 38 2.7 in patients with osteoarthritis in German primary care, 39 3.0 in patients with CHD, hypertension, or diabetes in Australian general practice, 40 and 3.2 in Hispanic patients with diabetes in hospital ambulatory settings in the US. 41 Although there may be other variables that confound these comparisons, they do suggest that patients in the cohort perceived that they were experiencing low levels of care planning, despite high levels of overall satisfaction (Table 1).…”

Section: -17mentioning

confidence: 91%

Care plans and care planning in the management of long-term conditions in the UK: a controlled prospective cohort study

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patients Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) in two Australian studies: structure and utility

Cited by 39 publications

References 13 publications

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

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

Patient-experienced effect of an active implementation of a disease management programme for COPD – a randomised trial

Care plans and care planning in the management of long-term conditions in the UK: a controlled prospective cohort study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About