ArticleEuropean journal for person centered healthcare2016
Patient Experience in an Era of Primary Care Transformation: Revisiting the PACIC.
Article in European journal for person centered healthcare, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06922188 (Development of Measures to Screen for Financial Hardship in Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Development of Measures to Screen for Financial Hardship in Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychometric properties of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care measure (PACIC-5A) among patients with obesity.BMC health services research · 2019Trial
- Scoping review of instruments measuring organizational context in implementation studies within healthcare.Health research policy and systems · 2026Review
- Improving Management of Non-communicable Chronic Diseases in Primary Healthcare Centres in The Saudi Health Care System.Health services insights · 2022Article
- Determinants Of Patient Experience With Low Back Pain Interdisciplinary Care: A Pre-Post Interventional Study.Journal of pain research · 2019Article
- Patients' assessment of chronic illness care: a validation study among patients with type 2 diabetes in Finland.BMC health services research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleAims and Objective: The validation study of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) questionnaire suggested a 5-factor structure determined a priori, but subsequent analyses have questioned the validity of the original factor structure. This study analyzed the factor structure of the PACIC using a large and diverse patient sample, and evaluated the identified factors through the lens of recent transformational initiatives in primary care.
methodsConvenience samples of adults completed surveys in waiting rooms during clinic visits. Primary care patients with 1 or more chronic illnesses with complete PACIC responses at baseline from 39 clinics (n=1,567) and at follow-up from 36 clinics (n=1,536) participated. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on baseline and follow-up patient questionnaire data from a cluster randomized controlled trial. Identified factors were evaluated in terms of item loadings, content, reliability, and the extent to which items reflected advances in the delivery of chronic illness care.
resultsAnalyses supported the use of the PACIC summary score. Although a 5-factor model was retained, factor loadings were different from the original PACIC validation study. All factors had sufficient reliability, but findings suggested potential revisions to enhance the factor structure.
conclusionsIt may be time to revise the PACIC to enhance the stability of the subscales (factors) and better reflect recent transformations in the delivery of chronic illness care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27746917PMC5060942What OpenQuestion holds
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.