Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38764032›Full record

ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2024

The Patient Activation Measure-13 (PAM-13) in an oncology patient population: psychometric properties and dimensionality evaluation.

Inka Roesel, Daniela Froehlich, Stefanie Joos, Jan Valentini, Holger Mauch, Peter Martus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Inka RoeselInstitute for General Practice and Interprofessional Care, Faculty of Medicine Tuebingen, University Hospital, Tuebingen, Germany. inka.roesel@med.uni-tuebingen.de.
Daniela FroehlichInstitute for General Practice and Interprofessional Care, Faculty of Medicine Tuebingen, University Hospital, Tuebingen, Germany.
Stefanie JoosInstitute for General Practice and Interprofessional Care, Faculty of Medicine Tuebingen, University Hospital, Tuebingen, Germany.
Jan ValentiniInstitute for General Practice and Interprofessional Care, Faculty of Medicine Tuebingen, University Hospital, Tuebingen, Germany.
Holger MauchInstitute for General Practice and Interprofessional Care, Faculty of Medicine Tuebingen, University Hospital, Tuebingen, Germany.
Peter MartusInstitute for Clinical Epidemiology and Applied Biostatistics, University Hospital of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate assessment and enhancement of health-related skills among oncology patients are pivotal for optimizing cancer care. The Patient Activation Measure (PAM-13), a questionnaire designed to reflect an individual's knowledge, skills, and confidence in self-healthcare management, has been validated across diverse countries and settings. Concerns have been raised regarding the cross-situational applicability, as patients with specific diseases and cultural backgrounds interpret questionnaire items differently. This study aimed to examine the structural validity and psychometric properties of the PAM-13 in an oncological patient cohort.

methodsBaseline data from a longitudinal non-randomized controlled study involving cancer out-patients (n = 1,125) from Comprehensive Cancer Centres in Southern Germany were analysed. The German version of the PAM-13 was employed. With classical test and item response theory methods data quality, reliability, convergent and structural validity, as well as psychometric properties were assessed. Exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were employed to investigate the postulated unidimensionality of the underlying construct. With a partial credit model (PCM) we examined item fit, targeting, local independence and differential item functioning.

resultsParticipants were predominantly female (73.0%) with a breast cancer diagnosis (41.3%). While items were generally well-accepted, ceiling effects were observed and a high mean PAM-13 score (69.7, SD = 14.2) was noted, potentially compromising responsiveness to interventions. Reliability was adequate (Cronbach's α = 0.81), person and item separation reliability were good to excellent (0.81 and 0.99, respectively). Explorations of the unidimensionality of the construct (EFA, CFA, PCM) yielded inconclusive results, hinting towards a two-factor solution. Item difficulty rankings deviated from the original. No differential item functioning was identified, and local independence was confirmed.

conclusionsWhile the PAM-13 serves as a valuable instrument for comprehending and promoting health-related skills in cancer patients, the identification of ceiling effects, disordered item-difficulty rankings, and inconclusive findings regarding unidimensionality contribute to the expanding body of evidence, emphasizing the dependency of PAM-13's validity and reliability on distinctive characteristics within the population under investigation. Future research should prioritize refining or adding PAM-13 items to better capture the specific health-related challenges within diverse populations, paving the way for more effective patient engagement strategies in oncology. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00021779.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPatient ParticipationPsychometricsAdultAgedFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleGermanyHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSelf CareSurveys and QuestionnairesCancer careConfirmatory factor analysisExploratory factor analysisItem response theoryPAM-13Partial credit modelPatient activation measurePsychometric evaluation

Identifiers

PMID38764032
PMCPMC11103863

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.