Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32155180›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2020

Validation of the Dutch version of the primary care resources and support for self-management tool: A tool to assess the quality of self-management support.

Maarten Voorhaar, Erik Wma Bischoff, Guus Asijee, Jean Muris, Onno Cp van Schayck, Annerika Slok, Anja Visser

Abstract readClinical TrialValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Maarten VoorhaarMaastricht University, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Department of Family Medicine, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4032-6163
Erik Wma BischoffRadboud University Medical Centre, Department of Primary and Community Care, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Guus AsijeeMaastricht University, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Department of Family Medicine, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Jean MurisMaastricht University, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Department of Family Medicine, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8780-476X
Onno Cp van SchayckMaastricht University, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Department of Family Medicine, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Annerika SlokMaastricht University, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Department of Family Medicine, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Anja VisserUniversity of Groningen, Theology and Religious Studies,Groningen, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEnhancing the self-management activities of patients improves the quality of care and is an integrated element of current healthcare provision. However, self-management support (SMS) is not yet common in healthcare. The Primary Care Resources and Support for Self-Management (PCRS) is a tool for healthcare professionals to assess the quality of SMS. In this study, we assessed the validity and reliability of the Dutch version of the PCRS.

methodThe validation of the PCRS was performed in Dutch healthcare centres. Correlations between the PCRS scores and the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) and Clinician Support for Patient Activation Measure (CS-PAM) scores were calculated to assess the convergent and discriminant validity. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to test the factor structure. Lastly, the internal consistency and face validity were assessed.

resultsThe convergent and discriminant validity were good, with respective correlations of 0.730 (p < 0.001) and 0.030 (p > 0.050) between the PCRS and the ACIC SMS subscale and the PCRS and the CS-PAM. Although 49% of the variance of the PCRS was explained by one factor, the CFA could not confirm a fit between a one-factor model and the data. The reliability was excellent (Cronbach's α = 0.921).

conclusionThe PCRS showed good validity and excellent internal consistency. However, the evidence for its validity was inconclusive. We therefore suggest rephrasing specific items.

Indexed as

Self-ManagementAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleGeneral PractitionersHealth ResourcesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPrimary Health CareQuality Assurance, Health CareSocial SupportSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID32155180
PMCPMC7064186

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.