Patients Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) in two Australian studies

Structure and utility

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aims: To validate the Patients Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) among patients with chronic disease in the Australian context and to examine the relationship between patient-assessed quality of care and patient and practice characteristics. Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of baseline data in two independent health service intervention studies that involved patients with type 2 diabetes, ischaemic heart disease and/or hypertension in general practice. The first study involved 2552 patients from 60 urban and rural general practices. The second involved 989 patients from 26 practices in Sydney. Patients were mailed a questionnaire, which included the PACIC and Short Form Health Survey. Factor analysis was performed and the factor scores and total PACIC were analysed using multi-level regression models against practice and patient characteristics. Results: Factor analysis revealed a two-factor solution with similar loading of PACIC items in both studies: one for shared decision making and self-management and the other for planned care. Practice characteristics were not related to PACIC scores. Scores were related to patient characteristics - education, retirement, type and number and duration of conditions. Conclusions: The two-factor structure of the PACIC found in these Australian studies is different from the five-factor structure found in the US and the European studies. This may be related to differences in the way patients interact with the health system especially the use of Team Care plans. The association of total scores with patient characteristics was consistent with those found in other studies including a lack of association with gender, age and ethnicity. These findings should be taken into consideration when comparing patient-assessed quality of care between countries using this tool.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)215-221
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Volume17
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Chronic Disease
Quality of Health Care
General Practice
Statistical Factor Analysis
Retirement
Patient Education
Self Care
Health Surveys
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Health Services
Myocardial Ischemia
Decision Making
Patient Care
Cross-Sectional Studies
Hypertension

Cite this

Taggart, Jane ; Chan, Bibiana ; Jayasinghe, Upali W. ; Christl, Bettina ; Proudfoot, Judy ; Crookes, Patrick ; Beilby, Justin ; Black, Deborah ; Harris, Mark F. / Patients Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) in two Australian studies : Structure and utility. In: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2011 ; Vol. 17, No. 2. pp. 215-221.
@article{d72875b8a0a34621b7ee7edd69d9c087,
title = "Patients Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) in two Australian studies: Structure and utility",
abstract = "Aims: To validate the Patients Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) among patients with chronic disease in the Australian context and to examine the relationship between patient-assessed quality of care and patient and practice characteristics. Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of baseline data in two independent health service intervention studies that involved patients with type 2 diabetes, ischaemic heart disease and/or hypertension in general practice. The first study involved 2552 patients from 60 urban and rural general practices. The second involved 989 patients from 26 practices in Sydney. Patients were mailed a questionnaire, which included the PACIC and Short Form Health Survey. Factor analysis was performed and the factor scores and total PACIC were analysed using multi-level regression models against practice and patient characteristics. Results: Factor analysis revealed a two-factor solution with similar loading of PACIC items in both studies: one for shared decision making and self-management and the other for planned care. Practice characteristics were not related to PACIC scores. Scores were related to patient characteristics - education, retirement, type and number and duration of conditions. Conclusions: The two-factor structure of the PACIC found in these Australian studies is different from the five-factor structure found in the US and the European studies. This may be related to differences in the way patients interact with the health system especially the use of Team Care plans. The association of total scores with patient characteristics was consistent with those found in other studies including a lack of association with gender, age and ethnicity. These findings should be taken into consideration when comparing patient-assessed quality of care between countries using this tool.",
keywords = "Chronic disease, Linkages, PACIC, Primary care, Quality of care, Teamwork",
author = "Jane Taggart and Bibiana Chan and Jayasinghe, {Upali W.} and Bettina Christl and Judy Proudfoot and Patrick Crookes and Justin Beilby and Deborah Black and Harris, {Mark F.}",
year = "2011",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01423.x",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "215--221",
journal = "Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice",
issn = "1356-1294",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

Taggart, J, Chan, B, Jayasinghe, UW, Christl, B, Proudfoot, J, Crookes, P, Beilby, J, Black, D & Harris, MF 2011, 'Patients Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) in two Australian studies: Structure and utility', Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 215-221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01423.x

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; Beilby, Justin; Black, Deborah; Harris, Mark F.

In: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, Vol. 17, No. 2, 01.04.2011, p. 215-221.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patients Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) in two Australian studies

T2 - Structure and utility

AU - Taggart, Jane

AU - Chan, Bibiana

AU - Jayasinghe, Upali W.

AU - Christl, Bettina

AU - Proudfoot, Judy

AU - Crookes, Patrick

AU - Beilby, Justin

AU - Black, Deborah

AU - Harris, Mark F.

PY - 2011/4/1

Y1 - 2011/4/1

N2 - Aims: To validate the Patients Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) among patients with chronic disease in the Australian context and to examine the relationship between patient-assessed quality of care and patient and practice characteristics. Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of baseline data in two independent health service intervention studies that involved patients with type 2 diabetes, ischaemic heart disease and/or hypertension in general practice. The first study involved 2552 patients from 60 urban and rural general practices. The second involved 989 patients from 26 practices in Sydney. Patients were mailed a questionnaire, which included the PACIC and Short Form Health Survey. Factor analysis was performed and the factor scores and total PACIC were analysed using multi-level regression models against practice and patient characteristics. Results: Factor analysis revealed a two-factor solution with similar loading of PACIC items in both studies: one for shared decision making and self-management and the other for planned care. Practice characteristics were not related to PACIC scores. Scores were related to patient characteristics - education, retirement, type and number and duration of conditions. Conclusions: The two-factor structure of the PACIC found in these Australian studies is different from the five-factor structure found in the US and the European studies. This may be related to differences in the way patients interact with the health system especially the use of Team Care plans. The association of total scores with patient characteristics was consistent with those found in other studies including a lack of association with gender, age and ethnicity. These findings should be taken into consideration when comparing patient-assessed quality of care between countries using this tool.

AB - Aims: To validate the Patients Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) among patients with chronic disease in the Australian context and to examine the relationship between patient-assessed quality of care and patient and practice characteristics. Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of baseline data in two independent health service intervention studies that involved patients with type 2 diabetes, ischaemic heart disease and/or hypertension in general practice. The first study involved 2552 patients from 60 urban and rural general practices. The second involved 989 patients from 26 practices in Sydney. Patients were mailed a questionnaire, which included the PACIC and Short Form Health Survey. Factor analysis was performed and the factor scores and total PACIC were analysed using multi-level regression models against practice and patient characteristics. Results: Factor analysis revealed a two-factor solution with similar loading of PACIC items in both studies: one for shared decision making and self-management and the other for planned care. Practice characteristics were not related to PACIC scores. Scores were related to patient characteristics - education, retirement, type and number and duration of conditions. Conclusions: The two-factor structure of the PACIC found in these Australian studies is different from the five-factor structure found in the US and the European studies. This may be related to differences in the way patients interact with the health system especially the use of Team Care plans. The association of total scores with patient characteristics was consistent with those found in other studies including a lack of association with gender, age and ethnicity. These findings should be taken into consideration when comparing patient-assessed quality of care between countries using this tool.

KW - Chronic disease

KW - Linkages

KW - PACIC

KW - Primary care

KW - Quality of care

KW - Teamwork

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79952821892&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01423.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01423.x

M3 - Article

VL - 17

SP - 215

EP - 221

JO - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

JF - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

SN - 1356-1294

IS - 2

ER -