Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25970618›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

Assessment of patient empowerment--a systematic review of measures.

Paul J Barr, Isabelle Scholl, Paulina Bravo, Marjan J Faber, Glyn Elwyn, Marion McAllister

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06217419 (Proof of Concept of Remote Management of Chronic Inflammatory Airway Diseases for Patient Empowerment), which is not on this map. Cited by 94 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
94citing papers in PubMed, 10 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.

NCT06217419 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Proof of Concept of Remote Management of Chronic Inflammatory Airway Diseases for Patient Empowerment

TypeinterventionalSponsorAzienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di SassariRan2024 to 2026Enrolled136ConditionsChronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps, AsthmaArmsRadio Frequency IDentification (RFID) device
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

94 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Interactive digital tools to support empowerment of people with cancer: a systematic literature review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Personal utility in genomic testing: a systematic literature review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2017
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

34 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Paul J BarrDartmouth College, Lebanon, United States of America.
Isabelle SchollUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Paulina BravoCardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom; Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Marjan J FaberRadboud University Medical Center, Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Glyn ElwynDartmouth College, Lebanon, United States of America.
Marion McAllisterCardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient empowerment has gained considerable importance but uncertainty remains about the best way to define and measure it. The validity of empirical findings depends on the quality of measures used. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of studies assessing psychometric properties of questionnaires purporting to capture patient empowerment, evaluate the methodological quality of these studies and assess the psychometric properties of measures identified.

methodsElectronic searches in five databases were combined with reference tracking of included articles. Peer-reviewed articles reporting psychometric testing of empowerment measures for adult patients in French, German, English, Portuguese and Spanish were included. Study characteristics, constructs operationalised and psychometric properties were extracted. The quality of study design, methods and reporting was assessed using the COSMIN checklist. The quality of psychometric properties was assessed using Terwee's 2007 criteria.

findings30 studies on 19 measures were included. Six measures are generic, while 13 were developed for a specific condition (N=4) or specialty (N=9). Most studies tested measures in English (N=17) or Swedish (N=6). Sample sizes of included studies varied from N=35 to N=8261. A range of patient empowerment constructs was operationalised in included measures. These were classified into four domains: patient states, experiences and capacities; patient actions and behaviours; patient self-determination within the healthcare relationship and patient skills development. Quality assessment revealed several flaws in methodological study quality with COSMIN scores mainly fair or poor. The overall quality of psychometric properties of included measures was intermediate to positive. Certain psychometric properties were not tested for most measures. DISCUSSION: Findings provide a basis from which to develop consensus on a core set of patient empowerment constructs and for further work to develop a (set of) appropriately validated measure(s) to capture this. The methodological quality of psychometric studies could be improved by adhering to published quality criteria.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansPatient SatisfactionPsychometricsQuality ImprovementSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID25970618
PMCPMC4430483

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.