Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33115421›Full record

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.

David T Eton, Mark Linzer, Deborah H Boehm, Catherine E Vanderboom, Elizabeth A Rogers, Marlene H Frost, Mike Wambua, Miamoua Vang, Sara Poplau, Minji K Lee and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. 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 · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Quality Indicators for High-Need Patients: a Systematic Review.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. 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 · 2023
    Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Burden of Treatment in Patients With Heart Failure.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors.

David T EtonDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Harwick Building, Second Floor, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. eton.david@mayo.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-8715-1511
Mark LinzerHennepin Healthcare, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Deborah H BoehmDecision Partners for Health, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Catherine E VanderboomDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Harwick Building, Second Floor, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Elizabeth A RogersUniversity of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Marlene H FrostWomen's Cancer Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Mike WambuaHennepin Healthcare Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Miamoua VangHennepin Healthcare Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Sara PoplauHennepin Healthcare Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Minji K LeeRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Roger T AndersonDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA.

Funding

Multi-purpose use of a patient-reported measure of treatment burden in primary careR01NR015441 · NINR · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI ETON, DAVID T · 2016 to 2020
$2.3M
Optimizing Diabetes Care Quality for Low-Income PatientsK23DK118207 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI ROGERS, ELIZABETH A · 2018 to 2023
$1.3M
NINR NIH HHS R01 NR015441
6 · The paper itself

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

Self-ManagementChronic DiseaseFemaleHumansMalePrimary Health CareQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesMultimorbidityPatient-centeredPatient-reported experience measuresPatient-reported outcome measuresPrimary health careQuality of health careQuality of life

Identifiers

PMID33115421
PMCPMC7594460

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.