Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39093529›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2024

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.

Zijun Xu, Dexing Zhang, Yang Zhao, Arpita Ghosh, David Peiris, Yiqi Li, Samuel Yeung Shan Wong

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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. 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.

Zijun XuJockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Dexing ZhangJockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. zhangdxdaisy@cuhk.edu.hk.
Yang ZhaoThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Arpita GhoshThe George Institute for Global Health, New Delhi, Delhi, India.
David PeirisThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Yiqi LiJockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Samuel Yeung Shan WongJockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundValidated and comprehensive tools to measure treatment burden are needed for healthcare professionals to understand the treatment burden of patients in China. The study aimed to translate and validate the Chinese version of Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS vs. 2.0) in patients with multimorbidity in primary care. METHODOLOGY: The translation process of the 60-item PETS vs. 2.0 followed the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Translation, Formatting, and Testing Guidelines. Computer-assisted assessments were conducted in adult primary care patients with multimorbidity from three general out-patient clinics in Hong Kong. A sample of 502 patients completed the assessments from July to December 2023. Internal reliability was examined using Cronbach's alphas for each domain of the PETS vs. 2.0. Concurrent validity was assessed through the correlations between different domains of PETS vs. 2.0 with established measures including quality of life, frailty, and depression. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood method was carried out to assess the construct validity.

resultsThe mean age of participants was 64.9 years old and 56.2% were female. Internal consistency reliability was acceptable (alpha ≥ 0.70) for most domains. Higher scores of PETS domains were significantly correlated with worse quality of life, higher level of frailty, and more depressive symptoms (p < 0.05). In CFA, after setting the covariances on the error variances, the adjusted model revealed an acceptable model fit (χ

conclusionsThe Chinese version of PETS vs. 2.0 is a reliable and valid tool for assessing the perceived treatment burden in patients with multimorbidity in primary care. All domains and items in the original questionnaires were retained.

Indexed as

MultimorbidityPrimary Health CareSelf-ManagementAdultAgedChronic DiseaseFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHong KongHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesMultimorbidityPETSPrimary careTreatment burdenValidation

Identifiers

PMID39093529
PMCPMC11297226

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.