Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40954080›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Development and psychometric evaluation of a new self-report measure to assess patient engagement behaviours and capacity in the USA: the Patient Engagement Capacity Survey.

Megan E Gregory, Cynthia J Sieck, Daniel M Walker, Gennaro Di Tosto, Michael C Edwards, Ann Scheck McAlearney, Sarah Gebretsadik, Tess V DeVos, Jennifer L Hefner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Megan E GregoryDepartment of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA megan.gregory@ufl.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6888-6886
Cynthia J SieckCenter for Health Equity, Dayton Children's Hospital, Dayton, Ohio, USA.
Daniel M WalkerDepartment of Family and Community Medicine and Center for the Advancement of Team Science, Analytics and Systems Thinking in Health Services and Implementation Science Research (CATALYST), The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Gennaro Di TostoCenter for the Advancement of Team Science, Analytics and Systems Thinking in Health Services and Implementation Science Research (CATALYST), The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Michael C EdwardsDepartment of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA.
Ann Scheck McAlearneyDivision of Health Services Management and Policy, The Ohio State University College of Public Health, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Sarah GebretsadikHouston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA.
Tess V DeVosCenter for Health Equity, Dayton Children's Hospital, Dayton, Ohio, USA.
Jennifer L HefnerDivision of Health Services Management and Policy, The Ohio State University College of Public Health, Columbus, Ohio, USA.

Funding

Total Engagement and Activation Measure (TEAM): Developing a measure of the capacity for patients to engage in their health careR01AG056469 · NIA · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI HEFNER, JENNIFER L, SIECK, CYNTHIA J. · 2018 to 2022
$2.4M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG056469
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePatient engagement (PE), or a patient's participation in their healthcare, is an important component of comprehensive healthcare delivery, yet there is not an existing, publicly available, measurement tool to assess PE capacity and behaviours. We sought to develop a survey to measure PE capacity and behaviours for use in ambulatory healthcare clinics.

designMeasure development and psychometric evaluation. SETTING AND

participantsA total of 1180 adults in the USA from 2022 to 2024, including 1050 individuals who had indicated they had seen a healthcare provider in the prior 12 months who were recruited nationally via social media across three separate samples; 8 patient advisors and healthcare providers recruited from a large, midwestern US Academic Medical Center; and 122 patients recruited from five participating ambulatory clinics in the Midwestern USA.

methodsAn initial survey was developed based on a concept mapping approach with a Project Advisory Board composed of patients, researchers and clinicians. Social media was then used to recruit 540 participants nationally (Sample 1) to complete the initial, 101-item version of the survey to generate data for factor analysis. We conducted exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to assess model and item fit to inform item reduction, and subsequently conducted cognitive interviews with eight additional participants (patient advisors and providers; Sample 2), who read survey items aloud, shared their thoughts and selected a response. The survey was revised and shortened based on these results. Next, a test-retest survey, also administered nationally via another round of social media recruitment, was administered two times to a separate sample (n=155; Sample 3), 2 weeks apart. We further revised the survey to remove items with low temporal stability based on these results. For clinic administration, research staff approached patients (n=122; Sample 4) in waiting rooms in one of five ambulatory clinics to complete the survey electronically or on paper to determine feasibility of in-clinic survey completion. We engaged in further item reduction based on provider feedback about survey length and fielded a final revised and shortened survey nationally via a final round of social media recruitment (n=355; Sample 5) to obtain psychometric data on this final version. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Cronbach's alphas, intraclass correlations (ICCs), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), standardised root mean squared residual (SRMR).

resultsThe final PE Capacity Survey (PECS) includes six domains across two scales: 'engagement behaviours' (ie, preparing for appointments, ensuring understanding, adhering to care) and 'engagement capacity' (ie, healthcare navigation resources, resilience, relationship with provider). The PECS is 18 questions, can be completed during a clinic visit in less than 10 minutes, and produces scores which demonstrate acceptable internal consistency reliability (α=0.72 engagement behaviours, 0.76 engagement capacity), indicating items are measuring the same overarching construct. The scales also had high test-retest reliability (ICC=0.82 behaviours, 0.86 capacity), indicating stability of response over time, and expected dimensionality with high fit indices for the final scales (behaviours: CFI=0.97; RMSEA=0.07; SRMR=0.05; capacity: CFI=0.99; RMSEA=0.06; SRMR=0.06), indicating initial evidence of construct validity.

conclusionsThe PECS is the first known measure to assess patients' capacity for engagement and represents a step toward informing interventions and care plans that acknowledge a patient's engagement capacity and supporting engagement behaviours. Future work should be done to validate the measure in other languages and patient populations, and to assess criterion-related validity of the measure against patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationPsychometricsSelf ReportAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesYoung AdultPatient ParticipationPrimary CareSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID40954080
PMCPMC12439151

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.