ArticleBMC health services research2019
Comparison of the Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) with two single-item measures among Finnish Health care centre patients.
Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the Clinical and Humanistic Impact of a Self-Care and Minor Ailment Service (MAS).Communications medicine · 2026Article
- The MyRelief Digital Educational Self-Management Program for Persistent Low Back Pain: Feasibility Uncontrolled Trial.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Enablement After Consultation in Primary Healthcare: How Do Patients and Doctors Cross-Sectionally Evaluate It in Northern Portugal.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- Integrating dermatologists in primary care: impact on delays, patient and professional experiences.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Association Between Patient-Reported Enablement and Customer Satisfaction in 140 055 Primary Care Patients After Doctor Appointment.Journal of patient experience · 2024Article
- Empowerment and enablement and their associations with change in health-related quality of life after a supported osteoarthritis self-management programme - a prospective observational study.Archives of physiotherapy · 2023Article
- Study protocol for a feasibility study of an online educational programme for people working and living with persistent low back pain.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2023Article
- Enablement and empowerment among patients participating in a supported osteoarthritis self-management programme - a prospective observational study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Observational
- Detecting the patient's need for help with machine learning based on expressions.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- The validity, reliability, sensitivity and responsiveness of a modified Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI-2) as a tool for serial measurements of health enablement.Family practice · 2021Article
- Patient enablement after a consultation with a general practitioner-Explaining variation between countries, practices and patients.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
- The validity and reliability of the patient enablement instrument (PEI) after GP appointments in Finnish health care centres.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) is an established patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that reflects the quality of appointments with general practitioners (GPs). It is a six-item questionnaire administered to the patient immediately after a consultation. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a single-item measure could replace the PEI when measuring patient enablement among Finnish health care centre patients.
methodsTwo single-item measures, Q1 and Q2, were chosen for comparison with the PEI. Firstly, a pilot study with questionnaire testing and brief interviews with the respondents were performed in order to assess the content validity of the PEI and the single-item measures. Secondly, a questionnaire study after a single appointment with a GP was carried out in three health care centres in Western Finland in order to evaluate the construct and criterion validity of the single-item measures. A telephone interview was performed 2 weeks after the appointment in order to assess the test-retest reliability of the single-item measures. The sensitivity, specificity, and both positive and negative predictive values of Q1 and Q2 were calculated with different PEI score cut-off points.
resultsAltogether 483 patients with a completed PEI were included in the questionnaire study analyses. Altogether 149 and 175 patients had completed Q1 and Q2, respectively, both in the questionnaire and the telephone interview. The correlations between the PEI and Q1 and Q2 were 0.48 and 0.84, respectively. Both the single-item measures had a high sensitivity and a negative predictive value in relation to patients with lower PEI scores. The reliability coefficients were 0.24 for Q1 and 0.76 for Q2. The test-retest values of Q1, Q2, and the PEI were low.
conclusionsQ2 seems to be a valid and reliable measure of patient enablement. Q1 seems to be less correlated with the PEI, but it also has a high negative predictive value in relation to low enablement scores.
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.