The Patient Enablement Instrument-French version in a family practice setting: a reliability study

Background: Patient enablement can be defined as the extent to which a patient is capable of understanding and coping with his or her health issues. This concept is linked to a number of health outcomes such as self-management of chronic diseases and quality of life. The Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) was designed to measure this concept after a medical consultation. The instrument, in its original form and its translations into several languages, has proven to be reliable and valid. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability of the French version of the PEI (PEI-Fv) in a family practice setting. Methods: One hundred and ten participants were recruited in a family medicine clinic in the Saguenay region of Quebec (Canada). The PEI-Fv was completed twice, immediately after consultation with a physician (T1) and 2 weeks after the consultation (T2). The internal consistency of the tool was assessed with Cronbach's α and test-retest reliability by intraclass correlation coefficient. Results: The mean score for the PEI-Fv was 5.06 ± 3.97 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.30-5.81) at T1 and 4.63 ± 3.90 (95% CI: 3.82-5.44) at T2. Cronbach's α was high at T1 (α1 = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91-0.95) and T2 (α2 = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91-0.95). The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.48-0.74), indicating a moderate test-retest reliability. Conclusions: The internal consistency of the PEI-Fv is excellent. Test-retest reliability was moderate to good. Test-retest reliability should be examined in further studies at a less than 2-week interval to reduce maturation bias. This instrument can be used to measure enablement after consultation in a French-speaking family practice setting

The inter-observer agreement of examining pre-school children with acute cough: a nested study

BACKGROUND: The presence of clinical signs have implications for diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the inter-observer agreement of clinical signs in pre-school children presenting to primary care. METHODS: A nested study comparing two clinical assessments within a prospective cohort of 256 pre-school children with acute cough recruited from eight general practices in Leicestershire, UK. We examined agreement (using kappa statistics) between unstandardised and standardised clinical assessments of tachypnoea, chest signs and fever. RESULTS: Kappa values were poor or fair for all clinical signs (range 0.12 to 0.39) with chest signs the most reliable. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care clinicians should be aware that clinical signs may be unreliable when making diagnosis, prognosis and treatment decisions in pre-school children with cough. Future research should aim to further our understanding of how best to identify abnormal clinical signs

The Patients Assessment Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) questionnaire in The Netherlands: a validation study in rural general practice

BACKGROUND: Many patients with chronic illness receive health care in primary care settings, so a challenge is to provide well-structured chronic care in these settings. Our aim was to develop and test a Dutch version of the PACIC questionnaire, a measure for patient reported structured chronic care. METHODS: Observational study in 165 patients with diabetes or COPD from four general practices (72% response rate). Patients completed a written questionnaire, which included instruments for assessing chronic illness care (PACIC), evaluations of general practice (Europep), enablement (PEI), and individual characteristics. RESULTS: The patients had a mean age of 68.0 years and 47% comprised of women. Twenty-two to 35% of responding patients did not provide answers to specific items in the PACIC. In 11 items the lowest answering category was used by 30% or more of the responders and in 6 items the highest answering category was used by this number of responders. Principal factor analysis identified the previously defined five domains reasonably well. Cronbach's alpha per domain varied from 0.71 to 0.83, and the intraclass coefficient from 0.66 to 0.91. Diabetes patients reported higher presence of structured chronic care for 14 out of the 20 PACIC items. The effect of patient evaluations of general practice on the PACIC score was positive (b = 0.72, p < 0.004), but the effect of patient enablement on the PACIC score was negative (b = -1.13, p < 0.000). CONCLUSION: A translated and validated Dutch version of the PACIC questionnaire is now available. Further research on its validity is recommended

Developing and testing a measure of consultation-based reassurance for people with low back pain in primary care:a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: Reassurance from physicians is commonly recommended in guidelines for the management of low back pain (LBP), but the process of reassurance and its impact on patients is poorly researched. We aimed to develop a valid and reliable measure of the process of reassurance during LBP consultations. METHODS: Items representing the data-gathering stage of the consultation and affective and cognitive reassurance were generated from literature on physician-patient communication and piloted with expert researchers and physicians, a Patient and Public Involvement group, and LBP patients to form a questionnaire. Patients presenting for LBP at 43 General Practice surgeries were sent the questionnaire. The questionnaire was analysed with Rasch modelling, using two samples from the same population of recent LBP consultations: the first (n = 157, follow-up n = 84) for exploratory analysis and the second (n = 162, follow-up n = 74) for confirmatory testing. Responses to the questionnaire were compared with responses to satisfaction and enablement scales to assess the external validity of the items, and participants completed the questionnaire again one-week later to assess test-retest reliability. RESULTS: The questionnaire was separated into four subscales: data-gathering, relationship-building, generic reassurance, and cognitive reassurance, each containing three items. All subscales showed good validity within the Rasch models, and good reliability based on person- and item-separations and test-retest reliability. All four subscales were significantly positively correlated with satisfaction and enablement for both samples. The final version of the questionnaire is presented here. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the measure has demonstrated a good level of validity and generally acceptable reliability. This is the first measure to focus specifically on reassurance for LBP in primary care settings, and will enable researchers to further understanding of what is reassuring within the context of low back pain consultations, and how outcomes are affected by different types of reassurance. Additionally, the measure may provide a useful training and audit tool for physicians. The new measure requires testing in prospective cohorts, and would benefit from further validation against ethnographic observation of consultations in real time

Do you think it's a disease? a survey of medical students

Background: The management of medical conditions is influenced by whether clinicians regard them as "disease" or "not a disease". The aim of the survey was to determine how medical students classify a range of conditions they might encounter in their professional lives and whether a different name for a condition would influence their decision in the categorisation of the condition as a 'disease' or 'not a disease'. Methods. We surveyed 3 concurrent years of medical students to classify 36 candidate conditions into "disease" and "non-disease". The conditions were given a 'medical' label and a (lay) label and positioned where possible in alternate columns of the survey. Results: The response rate was 96% (183 of 190 students attending a lecture): 80% of students concurred on 16 conditions as "disease" (eg diabetes, tuberculosis), and 4 as "non- disease" (eg baldness, menopause, fractured skull and heat stroke). The remaining 16 conditions (with 21-79% agreement) were more contentious (especially obesity, infertility, hay fever, alcoholism, and restless leg syndrome). Three pairs of conditions had both a more, and a less, medical label: the more medical labels (myalgic encephalomyelitis, hypertension, and erectile dysfunction) were more frequently classified as 'disease' than the less medical (chronic fatigue syndrome, high blood pressure, and impotence), respectively, significantly different for the first two pairs. Conclusions: Some conditions excluded from the classification of "disease" were unexpected (eg fractured skull and heat stroke). Students were mostly concordant on what conditions should be classified as "disease". They were more likely to classify synonyms as 'disease' if the label was medical. The findings indicate there is still a problem 30 years on in the concept of 'what is a disease'. Our findings suggest that we should be addressing such concepts to medical students

Does the attention General Practitioners pay to their patients' mental health problems add to their workload? A cross sectional national survey

BACKGROUND: The extra workload induced by patients with mental health problems may sometimes cause GPs to be reluctant to become involved in mental health care. It is known that dealing with patients' mental health problems is more time consuming in specific situations such as in consultations. But it is unclear if GPs who are more often involved in patients' mental health problems, have a higher workload than other GPs. Therefore we investigated the following: Is the attention GPs pay to their patients' mental health problems related to their subjective and objective workload? METHODS: Secondary analyses were made using data from the Second Dutch National Survey of General Practice, a cross sectional study conducted in the Netherlands in 2000–2002. A nationally representative selection of 195 GPs from 104 general practices participated in this National Survey. Data from: 1) a GP questionnaire; 2) a detailed log of the GP's time use during a week and; 3) an electronic medical registration system, including all patients' contacts during a year, were used. Multiple regression analyses were conducted with the GP's workload as an outcome measure, and the GP's attention for mental health problems as a predictor. GP, patient, and practice characteristics were included in analyses as potential confounders. RESULTS: Results show that GPs with a broader perception of their role towards mental health care do not have more working hours or patient contacts than GPs with a more limited perception of their role. Neither are they more exhausted or dissatisfied with the available time. Also the number of patient contacts in which a psychological or social diagnosis is made is not related to the GP's objective or subjective workload. CONCLUSION: The GP's attention for a patient's mental health problems is not related to their workload. The GP's extra workload when dealing in a consultation with patients' mental health problems, as is demonstrated in earlier research, is not automatically translated into a higher overall workload. This study does not confirm GPs' complaints that mental health care is one of the components of their job that consumes a lot of their time and energy. Several explanations for these results are discussed

Do longer consultations improve the management of psychological problems in general practice? A systematic literature review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Psychological problems present a huge burden of illness in our community and GPs are the main providers of care. There is evidence that longer consultations in general practice are associated with improved quality of care; but this needs to be balanced against the fact that doctor time is a limited resource and longer consultations may lead to reduced access to health care.</p> <p>The aim of this research was to conduct a systematic literature review to determine whether management of psychological problems in general practice is associated with an increased consultation length and to explore whether longer consultations are associated with better health outcomes for patients with psychological problems.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A search was conducted on Medline (Ovid) databases up to7 June 2006. The following search terms, were used:</p> <p>general practice or primary health care (free text) or family practice (MeSH)</p> <p>AND consultation length or duration (free text) or time factors (MeSH)</p> <p>AND depression or psychological problems or depressed (free text).</p> <p>A similar search was done in Web of Science, Pubmed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library and no other papers were found.</p> <p>Studies were included if they contained data comparing consultation length and management or detection of psychological problems in a general practice or primary health care setting. The studies were read and categories developed to enable systematic data extraction and synthesis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>29 papers met the inclusion criteria. Consultations with a recorded diagnosis of a psychological problem were reported to be longer than those with no recorded psychological diagnosis. It is not clear if this is related to the extra time or the consultation style. GPs reported that time pressure is a major barrier to treating depression. There was some evidence that increased consultation length is associated with more accurate diagnosis of psychological problems.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Further research is needed to elucidate the factors in longer consultations that are associated with greater detection of psychological problems, and to determine the association between the detection of psychological problems and the attitude, gender, age or training of the GP and the age, gender and socioeconomic status of the patient. These are important considerations if general practice is to deal more effectively with people with psychological problems.</p

The modified patient enablement instrument: a Portuguese cross-cultural adaptation, validity and reliability study

"Article number: 16087"Enabling patients with asthma to obtain the knowledge, confidence and skills they need in order to assume a major role in the management of their disease is cost effective. It should be an integral part of any plan for long-term control of asthma. The modified Patient Enablement Instrument (mPEI) is an easily administered questionnaire that was adapted in the United Kingdom to measure patient enablement in asthma, but its applicability in Portugal is not known. Validity and reliability of questionnaires should be tested before use in settings different from those of the original version. The purpose of this study was to test the applicability of the mPEI to Portuguese asthma patients after translation and cross-cultural adaptation, and to verify the structural validity, internal consistency and reproducibility of the instrument. The mPEI was translated to Portuguese and back translated to English. Its content validity was assessed by a debriefing interview with 10 asthma patients. The translated instrument was then administered to a random sample of 142 patients with persistent asthma. Structural validity and internal consistency were assessed. For reproducibility analysis, 86 patients completed the instrument again 7 days later. Item-scale correlations and exploratory factor analysis were used to assess structural validity. Cronbach's alpha was used to test internal consistency, and the intra-class correlation coefficient was used for the analysis of reproducibility. All items of the Portuguese version of the mPEI were found to be equivalent to the original English version. There were strong item-scale correlations that confirmed construct validity, with a one component structure and good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha >0.8) as well as high test-retest reliability (ICC=0.85). The mPEI showed sound psychometric properties for the evaluation of enablement in patients with asthma making it a reliable instrument for use in research and clinical practice in Portugal. Further studies are needed to confirm its responsiveness.Financial support for this work was provided by FEDER funds through the Operational Programme Competitiveness Factors-COMPETE and National Funds through FCT-Foundation for Science and Technology under the project POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007038, and by the project NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000013, supported by Norte Portugal Regional Operational Programme (NORTE 2020), under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

To make a difference – how GPs conceive consultation outcomes. A phenomenographic study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Outcomes from GPs' consultations have been measured mainly with disease specific measures and with patient questionnaires about health, satisfaction, enablement and quality. The aim of this study was to explore GPs' conceptions of consultation outcomes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Interviews with 17 GPs in groups and individually about consultation outcomes from recently performed consultations were analysed with a phenomenographic research approach.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The GPs conceived outcomes in four ways: patient outcomes, GPs' self-evaluation, relationship building and change of surgery routines.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Patient outcomes, as conceived by the GPs, were generally congruent with those that had been taken up in outcome studies. Relationship building and change of surgery routines were outcomes in preparation for consultations to come. GPs made self-assessments related to internalized norms, grounded on a perceived collegial professional consensus. Considerations of such different aspects of outcomes can inspire professional development.</p