ArticleBMC family practice2020
Deriving and validating a brief measure of treatment burden to assess person-centered healthcare quality in primary care: a multi-method study.
Article in BMC family practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 5 of them syntheses 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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Patient-reported outcome measures for patients with chronic comorbidities: a systematic review of psychometric properties.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Pooled it
- Patient-reported experiences and patient-reported experience measures in primary care, home care, and community settings. A scoping review.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Measuring treatment burden related to general practice in patients with multimorbidity: development and validation of a PROM.Family medicine and community health · 2025Pooled it
- Measuring treatment burden in people with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM): a mixed-methods systematic review.BMC primary care · 2024Pooled it
- Quality Indicators for High-Need Patients: a Systematic Review.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Treatment burden for people experiencing homelessness with a recent non-fatal overdose: a questionnaire study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023Trial
- Reclaiming time as a fundamental determinant of health equity.SSM - population health · 2026Article
- The Treatment Burden for Multimorbidity Scale: A Development and Psychometric Validation Study.Nursing & health sciences · 2026Article
- Latent profiles analysis of Traditional Chinese Medicine Health Literacy in middle-aged and older adult patients with chronic diseases and its association with disease burden and self management.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Disparities in treatment burden in Peru among people with multiple long-term conditions by geography and healthcare facility: A cross-sectional study.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Measuring individual and community capacity factors in people with multimorbidity and exploring associations with health outcomes.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Burden of Treatment in Patients With Heart Failure.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Managing the work of living with heart failure: a qualitative study using the cumulative complexity model from Southeastern Minnesota.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Treatment burden in multimorbidity: an integrative review.BMC primary care · 2024Review
- The Chinese version of patient experience with treatment and self-management (PETS vs. 2.0): translation and validation in patients with multimorbidity in primary care in Hong Kong.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2024Article
- Measuring Quality of Life in Deprescribing Trials: A Scoping Review.Drugs & aging · 2024Article
- Further development and validation of the Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ).BMJ open · 2024Article
- Development and acceptability of PETS-Now, an electronic point-of-care tool to monitor treatment burden in patients with multiple chronic conditions: a multi-method study.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Trajectories of Treatment Burden Among Primary Care Patients with Long-Term Conditions in Southern China: A Latent Class Growth Analysis.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2024Article
- Relationship between Treatment Burden, Health Literacy, and Medication Adherence in Older Adults Coping with Multiple Chronic Conditions.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn primary care there is a need for more quality measures of person-centered outcomes, especially ones applicable to patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). The aim of this study was to derive and validate a short-form version of the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS), an established measure of treatment burden, to help fill the gap in quality measurement.
methodsPatient interviews (30) and provider surveys (30) were used to winnow items from the PETS (60 items) to a subset targeting person-centered care quality. Results were reviewed by a panel of healthcare providers and health-services researchers who finalized a pilot version. The Brief PETS was tested in surveys of 200 clinic and 200 community-dwelling MCC patients. Surveys containing the Brief PETS and additional measures (e.g., health status, medication adherence, quality of care, demographics) were administered at baseline and follow-up. Correlations and t-tests were used to assess validity, including responsiveness to change of the Brief PETS. Effect sizes (ES) were calculated on mean differences.
resultsWinnowing and panel review resulted in a 34-item Brief PETS pilot measure that was tested in the combined sample of 400 (mean age = 57.9 years, 50% female, 48% white, median number of conditions = 5). Reliability of most scales was acceptable (alpha > 0.70). Brief PETS scores were associated with age, income, health status, and quality of chronic illness care at baseline (P < .05; rho magnitude range: 0.16-0.66). Furthermore, Brief PETS scores differentiated groups based on marital and education status, presence/absence of a self-management routine, and optimal/suboptimal medication adherence (P < .05; ES range: 0.25-1.00). Declines in patient-reported physical or mental health status over time were associated with worsening PETS burden scores, while improvements were associated with improving PETS burden scores (P < .05; ES range: 0.04-0.44). Among clinic patients, 91% were willing to complete the Brief PETS as part of their clinic visits.
conclusionsThe Brief PETS (final version: 32 items) is a reliable and valid tool for assessing person-centered care quality related to treatment burden. It holds promise as a means of giving voice to patient concerns about the complexity of disease management.
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.