Patient preferences for patient participation : Psychometric evaluation of The 4Ps tool in patients with chronic heart or lung disorders

The Patient Preferences for Patient Participation tool (The 4Ps) was developed to aid clinical dialogue and to help patients to 1) depict, 2) prioritise, and 3) evaluate patient participation with 12 pre-set items reiterated in the three sections. An earlier qualitative evaluation of The 4Ps showed promising results. The present study is a psychometric evaluation of The 4Ps in patients with chronic heart or lung disease (n = 108) in primary and outpatient care. Internal scale validity was evaluated using Rasch analysis, and two weeks test–retest reliability of the three sections using kappa/weighted kappa and a prevalence- and bias-adjusted kappa. The 4Ps tool was found to be reasonably valid with a varied reliability. Proposed amendments are rephrasing of two items, and modifications of the rating scale in Section 2. The 4Ps is suggested for use to increase general knowledge of patient participation, but further studies are needed with regards to its implementation

Assessing and reporting patient participation by means of patient preferences and experiences

BackgroundAlthough patient participation is strongly associated with high quality of healthcare, valid means to measure and report a comprehensive notion of patient participation are scarce. The Patient Preferences for Patient Participation (4Ps) is a new healthcare practice and research tool, comprising patients' preferences as well as experiences. The 4Ps employs 12 items for the patient to conceptualise patient participation. The aim of this paper is to describe how the two perspectives of patient participation, namely preferences and experiences, can be combined to visualise and report preference-based patient participation.MethodsWith four response alternatives in each section, the 4Ps offers sixteen possible combinations of degree of match per item. Theoretical and clinical principles fostered a tentative order of six ranks and three levels of preference-based patient participation. To test the standard, statistical analyses for ordinal data were performed, using data from a randomised controlled trial evaluating an intervention aiming to improve patient participation. Further, structures for visualising the preference-based patient participation of individuals and groups were suggested.ResultsData from the 4Ps demonstrated the individuals' preference-based patient participation, indicating either a match or a mismatch for each item. Mismatches represented either the experience of participation surpassing the patient's preferences, or the patient's preferences for patient participation not being established. At group level, the suggested approach for visualising and reporting the 4Ps demonstrated that the intervention group had a significantly higher proportion of sufficient preference-based patient participation for certain items than the control group. These results had not been identified earlier, when using the preferences and experiences of patient participation as separate measures.ConclusionsWays to easily acquaint stakeholders with patients' preferences for patient participation are needed, in order for healthcare staff to better use resources to match the basic requirements of individuals and groups. While the 4Ps can guide professionals to patient participation as framed in legislations, concept analyses and by patients, a visualisation of the results is needed to capture preference-based patient participation. The proposed route to representing degree of match in preferences and experiences may also be relevant to other dimensions of quality of healthcare

Symptoms and impact of symptoms on function and health in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic heart failure in primary health care

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and chronic heart failure (CHF) seem to have several symptoms in common that impact health. However, methodological differences make this difficult to compare. AIM: Comparisons of symptoms, impact of symptoms on function and health between patients with COPD and CHF in primary health care (PHC). METHOD: The study is cross sectional, including patients with COPD (n=437) and CHF (n=388), registered in the patient administrative systems of PHC. The patients received specific questionnaires--the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale, the Medical Research Council dyspnea scale, and the Fatigue Impact Scale--by mail and additional questions about psychological and physical health. RESULTS: The mean age was 70 ± 10 years and 78 ± 10 years for patients with COPD and CHF respectively (P=0.001). Patients with COPD (n=273) experienced more symptoms (11 ± 7.5) than the CHF patients (n=211) (10 ± 7.6). The most prevalent symptoms for patients with COPD were dyspnea, cough, and lack of energy. For patients with CHF, the most prevalent symptoms were dyspnea, lack of energy, and difficulty sleeping. Experience of dyspnea, cough, dry mouth, feeling irritable, worrying, and problems with sexual interest or activity were more common in patients with COPD while the experience of swelling of arms or legs was more common among patients with CHF. When controlling for background characteristics, there were no differences regarding feeling irritable, worrying, and sexual problems. There were no differences in impact of symptoms or health. CONCLUSION: Patients with COPD and CHF seem to experience similar symptoms. There were no differences in how the patients perceived their functioning according to their cardinal symptoms; dyspnea and fatigue, and health. An intervention for both groups of patients to optimize the management of symptoms and improve function is probably more relevant in PHC than focusing on separate diagnosis groups