Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34016102›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

The work of having a chronic condition: development and psychometric evaluation of the distribution of co-care activities (DoCCA) scale.

Ulrica von Thiele Schwarz, Marta Roczniewska, Karin Pukk Härenstam, Klas Karlgren, Henna Hasson, Sivan Menczel, Carolina Wannheden

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Ulrica von Thiele SchwarzSchool of Health, Care and Social Welfare, Mälardalen University, Box 883, 721 23, Västerås, Sweden. ulrica.schwarz@mdh.se.
Marta RoczniewskaProcome, Medical Management Centre, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics (LIME), Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Karin Pukk HärenstamClinical Management, Medical Management Centre, LIME, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Klas KarlgrenMINT, LIME, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Henna HassonProcome, Medical Management Centre, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics (LIME), Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Sivan MenczelProcome, Medical Management Centre, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics (LIME), Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Carolina WannhedenProcome, Medical Management Centre, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics (LIME), Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Karolinska Institutet · SECentre for Palaeogenetics · SEMälardalen University · SESopot University of Applied Science · PL

Funding

Familjen Kamprads Stiftelse Grant nr. 20170012Swedish Research Council for Health and Welfare 2017-01451
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronic care involves multiple activities that can be performed by individuals and healthcare staff as well as by other actors and artifacts, such as eHealth services. Thus, chronic care management can be viewed as a system where the individual interacts with people and eHealth services performing activities to maintain or improve health and functioning, called co-care. Yet, the system perspective is not reflected in concepts such as person-centered care and shared decision making. This limits the understanding of individuals' global experience of chronic care management and subsequently the ability to optimize chronic care. The aim of this study was threefold: (1) to propose a theory-based operationalization of co-care for chronic care management, (2) to develop a scale to measure co-care as a distributed system of activities, and (3) to evaluate the scale's psychometric properties. With the theory of distributed cognition as a theoretical underpinning, co-care was operationalized along three dimensions: experience of activities, needs support, and goal orientation.

methodsInformed by the literature on patient experiences and work psychology, a scale denoted Distribution of Co-Care Activities (DoCCA) was developed with the three conceptualized dimensions, the activities dimension consisting of three sub-factors: demands, unnecessary tasks, and role clarity. It was tested with 113 primary care patients with chronic conditions in Sweden at two time points.

resultsA confirmatory factor analysis showed support for a second-order model with the three conceptualized dimensions, with activities further divided into the three sub-factors. Cronbach's alpha values indicated a good to excellent reliability of the subscales, and correlations across time points with panel data indicated satisfactory test-retest reliability. Convergent, concurrent and predictive validity of the scale were, overall, satisfactory.

conclusionsThe psychometric evaluation supports a model consisting of activities (demands, unnecessary tasks, and role clarity), needs support and goal orientation that can be reliably measured with the DoCCA scale. The scale provides a way to assess chronic care management as a system, considering the perspective of the individuals with the chronic condition and how they perceive the work that must be done, across situations, either by themselves or through healthcare, eHealth, or other means.

Indexed as

PsychometricsFactor Analysis, StatisticalHumansReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesSwedenChronic care managementCopenhagen Psychosocial Quesionnaire (COPSOQ)Co‐productionHealth and welfare technologyHuman‐computer interactionPatient engagementPatient experiencePatient participationPatient preferencePerson‐centered care

Identifiers

PMID34016102
PMCPMC8138998
OpenAlexW3163509541

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.