Observational studyBMC family practice2018
Translation and validation of the PACIC+ questionnaire: the Thai version.
Observational study in BMC family practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Public's perception of policies reducing tobacco availability by regulating the tobacco retail environment: A case study in Egypt.Tobacco prevention & cessation · 2025Article
- Transcultural adaptation and validation of Persian Version of Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC-5As) Questionnaire in Iranian older patients with type 2 diabetes.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Instruments for evaluating the quality of services in chronic diseases: scoping review.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2024Article
- The Chinese Version of the Breast Cancer Literacy Assessment Tool: Translation, Adaptation, and Validation Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Assessing a national policy on strengthening chronic care in primary care settings of a middle-income country using patients' perspectives.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Assessing the Pilot Implementation of the Integrated Multimorbidity Care Model in Five European Settings: Results from the Joint Action CHRODIS-PLUS.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Reliability and validity of the Greek translation of the patient assessment of chronic illness care + (PACIC-PLUS GR) survey.BMC family practice · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe number of patients with chronic illness is increasing worldwide. These patients usually receive care from a primary care facility. The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) is a tool that is increasingly used in several countries to measure how the patients perceive the care they receive. The goal of this validation study is to provide and validate an extended version of the tool, the PACIC+ questionnaire, in Thailand.
methodsIn this observational validation study, patients with type 2 diabetes from the outpatient clinic at a university hospital in Thailand completed the PACIC+ at the clinic. For follow-up, they received the questionnaire per mail after four weeks. The Thai PACIC+ comprises 26 items, which map onto 5 subscales and a summary score related to the Chronic Care Model (CCM) and 5 subscales and a summary score related to the 5A model, a counseling model for behavioral changes. Data-analysis focused on the use of most extreme answering categories (> 15%), internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), and test-retest reliability. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed for the CCM and the 5A model separately to examine the factor structure.
resultsA total of 151 patients participated. The average age of the sample was 63 ± 9 years (range 29-86 years). Fifty-three percent of the respondents were female. In the Delivery System subscale, 20% of patients reported the highest possible value; in all other subscales, relative frequencies of the most extreme categories did not exceed 15%. Cronbach's alpha per subscale varied from 0.58 to 0.81, while that of the summary scores were 0.89 and 0.91. The mean difference from the test-retest varied from - 0.06 to 0.17 across subscales. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin criterion for sampling adequacy (KMO) was good for both models as well as the Bartlett's test for sphericity p. While the factor loadings in rotated factor solution showed good concordance with the CCM, concordance was not as good for the 5A model, especially for the subscales "Assess" and "Advice".
conclusionA validated Thai version of the PACIC+ is now available to measure how the patients perceive the care they receive.
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.