ArticleThe patient2017
Development and Pretesting of a Questionnaire to Assess Patient Experiences and Satisfaction with Medications (PESaM Questionnaire).
Article in The patient, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient-reported outcome measures for medication treatment satisfaction: a systematic review of measure development and measurement properties.BMC medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Patient expectations, experiences and satisfaction with nintedanib and pirfenidone in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a quantitative study.Respiratory research · 2020Trial
- Health Professionals' Satisfaction with the Use of Electronic Health Records System for Healthcare Delivery in Ghana.Advances in health information science and practice · 2025Article
- Treatment preference and quality of life impact: ravulizumab vs eculizumab for atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2023Article
- Patient-centered Outcomes Research in Interstitial Lung Disease: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2021Article
- Reliability and Validity of the Treatment Satisfaction with Medicines Questionnaire (SATMED-Q) in Persons with Arterial Hypertension.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Health Related Quality of Life in Interstitial Lung Disease: Can We Use the Same Concepts Around the World?Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
- Assessing Preferences for Rare Disease Treatment: Qualitative Development of the Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria Patient Preference Questionnaire (PNH-PPQPatient preference and adherence · 2020Article
- Development and Psychometric Assessment of the Methadone Therapy Experiences Questionnaire among Patients under Treatment.Addiction & health · 2019Article
- Validity of the Patient Experiences and Satisfaction with Medications (PESaM) Questionnaire.The patient · 2019Article
- Patients' perceptions and patient-reported outcomes in progressive-fibrosing interstitial lung diseases.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2018Review
- Integrating Patient Perspectives into Personalized Medicine in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis.Frontiers in medicine · 2017Review
- Translation, Pilot Psychometric Validation, and Comparative Performance of the Arabic Version of the Anti-Clot Treatment Scale (ACTS).Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to develop, together with the Lung Foundation Netherlands and Dutch Kidney Patients Association, patients and clinicians, a measure to evaluate patient experiences with the orphan drugs pirfenidone (for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis [IPF]) and eculizumab (for atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome [aHUS]), as well as a generic measure of patient experiences and satisfaction with medications.
methodsDevelopment of the Patient Experiences and Satisfaction with Medications (PESaM) questionnaire consisted of four phases: literature review (phase I); focus groups and individual patient interviews (phase II); item generation (phase III); and face and content validity testing (phase IV). Literature review aimed to identify existing disease-specific and generic patient experience measures to provide guidance on the domains of medication use relevant to patients, the number of items and type of response categories, and to generate an initial pool of items. Subsequent focus groups and patient interviews were conducted to gain insight into the perceived effectiveness of the therapies, the burden of side effects, and how the medication impacted on a patient's daily life. Focus groups and interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Coding was carried out by highlighting passages in the text and assigning each passage a code representing the following predefined categories: (1) perceived effectiveness; (2) side effects; (3) ease of use; and (4) impact of medication. Using data from phase I and II, a panel of experts selected items relevant for inclusion in the questionnaire. Individual patient interviews with IPF and aHUS patients (n = 18), using a retrospective verbal probing technique, were conducted to assess face validity, time needed to fill out the questionnaire, and content validity.
resultsThe PESaM questionnaire that was developed consisted of two disease-specific modules that assessed patient experiences with pirfenidone for the treatment of IPF, and eculizumab for the treatment of aHUS, a generic module, applicable to any medication, and a module to assess patient expectations. Review of the literature identified multiple disease- or medication-specific questionnaires and two generic patient satisfaction questionnaires. Common domains across most questionnaires were effectiveness, side effects, ease of use and overall satisfaction. Patient interviews revealed the social impact (e.g. unable to go outside) of side effects such as photosensitivity associated with pirfenidone and the risk of infection associated with eculizumab. Each PESaM module focuses on patients' perceived effectiveness of the medication, side effects, and ease of use, and the impact these aspects have on physical and emotional health and daily life. The generic module additionally includes items related to satisfaction with the medication. Individual interviews with patients in phase IV confirmed, in general, that questions and response options of the modules were clear and content validity was good. The mean time to complete the modules ranged from 6 min for the disease-specific (aHUS) module to 9 min for the generic module.
conclusionsWe developed the PESaM questionnaire to quantitatively assess patient experiences and satisfaction with medications. A validation study is currently underway to examine the psychometric properties of the PESaM questionnaire.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.