Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21726439›Full record

ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2011

Development and validation of a short version of the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) in Dutch disease management programs.

Jane M Cramm, Mathilde M H Strating, Apostolos Tsiachristas, Anna P Nieboer

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. High-quality chronic care delivery improves experiences of chronically ill patients receiving care.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2013
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jane M CrammInstitute of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. cramm@bmg.eur.nl
Mathilde M H Strating
Apostolos Tsiachristas
Anna P Nieboer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the Netherlands the extent to which chronically ill patients receive care congruent with the Chronic Care Model is unknown. The main objectives of this study were to (1) validate the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) in the Netherlands in various Disease Management Programmes (DMPs) and (2) shorten the 34-item ACIC while maintaining adequate validity, reliability, and sensitivity to change.

methodsThe Dutch version of the ACIC was tested in 22 DMPs with 218 professionals. We tested the instrument by means of structural equation modelling, and examined its validity, reliability and sensitivity to change.

resultsAfter eliminating 13 items, the confirmatory factor analyses revealed good indices of fit with the resulting 21-item ACIC (ACIC-S). Internal consistency as represented by Cronbach's alpha ranged from 'acceptable' for the 'clinical information systems' subscale to 'excellent' for the 'organization of the healthcare delivery system' subscale. Correlations between the ACIC and ACIC-S subscales were also good, ranging from .87 to 1.00, indicating acceptable coverage of the core areas of the CCM. The seven subscales were significantly and positively correlated, indicating that the subscales were conceptually related but also distinct. Paired t-tests results show that the ACIC scores of the original instrument all improved significantly over time in regions that were in the process of implementing DMPs (all components at p < 0.0001).

conclusionWe conclude that the psychometric properties of the ACIC and the ACIC-S are good and the ACIC-S is a promising alternate instrument to assess chronic illness care.

Indexed as

Chronic DiseaseFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleNetherlandsOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePatient Care ManagementReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID21726439
PMCPMC3141373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.