ArticleBMC health services research2020
Validation of the patient assessment of chronic illness care (PACIC) short form scale in heart transplant recipients: the international cross-sectional bright study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01608477 (Building Research Initiative Group), 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.
Building Research Initiative Group: Chronic Illness Management and Adherence in Transplantation
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Trust in the Transplant Team Associated With the Level of Chronic Illness Management-A Secondary Data Analysis of the International BRIGHT Study.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2024Article
- Patient Assessment Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) and its associations with quality of life among Swiss patients with systemic sclerosis: a mixed methods study.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of mobile health-based self-management application for posttransplant cares: A systematic review.Health science reports · 2021Article
- Patients' Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC): Validation and Evaluation of PACIC Scale among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Hungary.International journal of integrated careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransplant recipients are chronically ill patients, who require lifelong follow-up to manage co-morbidities and prevent graft loss. This necessitates a system of care that is congruent with the Chronic Care Model. The eleven-item self-report Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) scale assesses whether chronic care is congruent with the Chronic Care Model, yet its validity for heart transplant patients has not been tested.
methodsWe tested the validity of the English version of the PACIC, and compared the similarity of the internal structure of the PACIC across English-speaking countries (USA, Canada, Australia and United Kingdom) and across six languages (French, German, Dutch, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese). This was done using data from the cross-sectional international BRIGHT study that included 1378 heart transplant patients from eleven countries across 4 continents. To test the validity of the instrument, confirmatory factor analyses to check the expected unidimensional internal structure, and relations to other variables, were performed.
resultsMain analyses confirmed the validity of the English PACIC version for heart transplant patients. Exploratory analyses across English-speaking countries and languages also confirmed the single factorial dimension, except in Italian and Spanish.
conclusionThis scale could help healthcare providers monitor level of chronic illness management and improve transplantation care.
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT01608477, first patient enrolled in March 2012, registered retrospectively: May 30, 2012.
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.