Validation of the Dutch version of the primary care resources and support for self-management tool: A tool to assess the quality of self-management support

Maarten Voorhaar; Erik W. M. A. Bischoff; Guus Asijee; Jean Muris; Onno C. P. van Schayck; Annerika Slok; Anja Visser

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0229771

Validation of the Dutch version of the primary care resources and support for self-management tool: A tool to assess the quality of self-management support

Maarten Voorhaar^*, Erik W. M. A. Bischoff, Guus Asijee, Jean Muris, Onno C. P. van Schayck, Annerika Slok, Anja Visser

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

Introduction

Enhancing the self-management activities of patients improves the quality of care and is an integrated element of current healthcare provision. However, self-management support (SMS) is not yet common in healthcare. The Primary Care Resources and Support for Self-Management (PCRS) is a tool for healthcare professionals to assess the quality of SMS. In this study, we assessed the validity and reliability of the Dutch version of the PCRS.

Method

The validation of the PCRS was performed in Dutch healthcare centres. Correlations between the PCRS scores and the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) and Clinician Support for Patient Activation Measure (CS-PAM) scores were calculated to assess the convergent and discriminant validity. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to test the factor structure. Lastly, the internal consistency and face validity were assessed.

Results

The convergent and discriminant validity were good, with respective correlations of 0.730 (p <0.001) and 0.030 (p > 0.050) between the PCRS and the ACIC SMS subscale and the PCRS and the CS-PAM. Although 49% of the variance of the PCRS was explained by one factor, the CFA could not confirm a fit between a one-factor model and the data. The reliability was excellent (Cronbach's a = 0.921).

Conclusion

The PCRS showed good validity and excellent internal consistency. However, the evidence for its validity was inconclusive. We therefore suggest rephrasing specific items.

Original language	English
Article number	0229771
Number of pages	11
Journal	PLOS ONE
Volume	15
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229771
Publication status	Published - 10 Mar 2020

Keywords

PATIENT ACTIVATION
HEALTH
PROGRAMS

Access to Document

10.1371/journal.pone.0229771Licence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{42f3a2a53bc844e79015a17c77b1c465,

title = "Validation of the Dutch version of the primary care resources and support for self-management tool: A tool to assess the quality of self-management support",

abstract = "IntroductionEnhancing the self-management activities of patients improves the quality of care and is an integrated element of current healthcare provision. However, self-management support (SMS) is not yet common in healthcare. The Primary Care Resources and Support for Self-Management (PCRS) is a tool for healthcare professionals to assess the quality of SMS. In this study, we assessed the validity and reliability of the Dutch version of the PCRS.MethodThe validation of the PCRS was performed in Dutch healthcare centres. Correlations between the PCRS scores and the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) and Clinician Support for Patient Activation Measure (CS-PAM) scores were calculated to assess the convergent and discriminant validity. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to test the factor structure. Lastly, the internal consistency and face validity were assessed.ResultsThe convergent and discriminant validity were good, with respective correlations of 0.730 (p <0.001) and 0.030 (p > 0.050) between the PCRS and the ACIC SMS subscale and the PCRS and the CS-PAM. Although 49% of the variance of the PCRS was explained by one factor, the CFA could not confirm a fit between a one-factor model and the data. The reliability was excellent (Cronbach's a = 0.921).ConclusionThe PCRS showed good validity and excellent internal consistency. However, the evidence for its validity was inconclusive. We therefore suggest rephrasing specific items.",

keywords = "PATIENT ACTIVATION, HEALTH, PROGRAMS",

author = "Maarten Voorhaar and Bischoff, {Erik W. M. A.} and Guus Asijee and Jean Muris and {van Schayck}, {Onno C. P.} and Annerika Slok and Anja Visser",

note = "Funding Information: This study was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim NL. The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors GA and MV, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the {\textquoteleft}author contributions{\textquoteright} section. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2020 Voorhaar et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.",

year = "2020",

month = mar,

day = "10",

doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0229771",

language = "English",

volume = "15",

journal = "PLOS ONE",

issn = "1932-6203",

publisher = "Public Library of Science",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Validation of the Dutch version of the primary care resources and support for self-management tool

T2 - A tool to assess the quality of self-management support

AU - Voorhaar, Maarten

AU - Bischoff, Erik W. M. A.

AU - Asijee, Guus

AU - Muris, Jean

AU - van Schayck, Onno C. P.

AU - Slok, Annerika

AU - Visser, Anja

N1 - Funding Information: This study was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim NL. The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors GA and MV, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section. Publisher Copyright: © 2020 Voorhaar et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

PY - 2020/3/10

Y1 - 2020/3/10

N2 - IntroductionEnhancing the self-management activities of patients improves the quality of care and is an integrated element of current healthcare provision. However, self-management support (SMS) is not yet common in healthcare. The Primary Care Resources and Support for Self-Management (PCRS) is a tool for healthcare professionals to assess the quality of SMS. In this study, we assessed the validity and reliability of the Dutch version of the PCRS.MethodThe validation of the PCRS was performed in Dutch healthcare centres. Correlations between the PCRS scores and the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) and Clinician Support for Patient Activation Measure (CS-PAM) scores were calculated to assess the convergent and discriminant validity. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to test the factor structure. Lastly, the internal consistency and face validity were assessed.ResultsThe convergent and discriminant validity were good, with respective correlations of 0.730 (p <0.001) and 0.030 (p > 0.050) between the PCRS and the ACIC SMS subscale and the PCRS and the CS-PAM. Although 49% of the variance of the PCRS was explained by one factor, the CFA could not confirm a fit between a one-factor model and the data. The reliability was excellent (Cronbach's a = 0.921).ConclusionThe PCRS showed good validity and excellent internal consistency. However, the evidence for its validity was inconclusive. We therefore suggest rephrasing specific items.

AB - IntroductionEnhancing the self-management activities of patients improves the quality of care and is an integrated element of current healthcare provision. However, self-management support (SMS) is not yet common in healthcare. The Primary Care Resources and Support for Self-Management (PCRS) is a tool for healthcare professionals to assess the quality of SMS. In this study, we assessed the validity and reliability of the Dutch version of the PCRS.MethodThe validation of the PCRS was performed in Dutch healthcare centres. Correlations between the PCRS scores and the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) and Clinician Support for Patient Activation Measure (CS-PAM) scores were calculated to assess the convergent and discriminant validity. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to test the factor structure. Lastly, the internal consistency and face validity were assessed.ResultsThe convergent and discriminant validity were good, with respective correlations of 0.730 (p <0.001) and 0.030 (p > 0.050) between the PCRS and the ACIC SMS subscale and the PCRS and the CS-PAM. Although 49% of the variance of the PCRS was explained by one factor, the CFA could not confirm a fit between a one-factor model and the data. The reliability was excellent (Cronbach's a = 0.921).ConclusionThe PCRS showed good validity and excellent internal consistency. However, the evidence for its validity was inconclusive. We therefore suggest rephrasing specific items.

KW - PATIENT ACTIVATION

KW - HEALTH

KW - PROGRAMS

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0229771

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0229771

M3 - Article

C2 - 32155180

SN - 1932-6203

VL - 15

JO - PLOS ONE

JF - PLOS ONE

IS - 3

M1 - 0229771

ER -