Dilara USTA, Fatoş KORKMAZ, İmatullah AKYAR, Andrea BONANOMİ

Hasta Katılımı Ölçeği: Kronik hastalığı olan hastalarda Türkçe geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması

Amaç: Hastaları sağlık bakım yönetimine dahil etmek, hasta merkezli bakımın bir gerekliliği olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Hasta Katılımı Ölçeği, hastaların bakımları süresince duygusal, davranışsal ve bilişsel yeterliliklerini değerlendirmek üzere geliştirilmiştir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, kronik hastalığı olan bireylerde, Hasta Katılımı Ölçeği’nin Türkçe formunun psikometrik özelliklerini belirlemektir.Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu metodolojik çalışma, bir üniversite hastanesinde yatmakta olan ve kronik hastalığa sahip 114 hasta ile, 2018 yılı haziran ayı içinde yürütülmüştür. Kapsam geçerliliği ve güvenirlik analizi sağlanmıştır. Orijinal ölçeğin Türkçe dil geçerliliği yapılmıştır. Bulgular: Ordinal alfa değeri 0.80 olarak hesaplanmıştır, bu değer iç tutarlılığın yüksek olduğunu işaret etmektedir. Rasch analizi, ölçeğin tek boyutlu olduğunu göstermektedir. Maddeler arası polikorik korelasyon katsayısı 0.61’dir ve Kategorik Temel Bileşen Analizi’ne göre her faktör yükü 0.74’ten yüksektir.Sonuç: Sonuç olarak, Hasta Katılımı Ölçeği’nin Türkçe uyarlamasının hasta katılımı fazlarını değerlendirmede yeterli psikometrik özelliklere sahip olduğu söylenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

kronik hastalık, hemşirelik, hasta katlımı, geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik

Patient Health Engagement Scale: Validity and reliability for Turkish patients with chronic diseases

Purpose: Engaging patients in their health care management journey has emerged as the requirement of the patient-centered care. Considering as an evidence-based measure, The Patient Health Engagement Scale was developed to evaluate patients’ emotional, behavioral, and cognitive competences during their care. This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of PHE-s in Turkish patients with chronic diseases.Materials and Methods: In this methodological study, one hundred and fourteen inpatients with chronic diseases were recruited in June 2018 in a university hospital. Content validity and reliability analysis were conducted. The original scale was translated into Turkish and back into English. Results: The Ordinal alpha was found 0.80, which refers to a good internal consistency. The Rasch analysis demonstrated that the scale is unidimensional. The inter-item polychoric correlation coefficient was equal to 0.61 and every factor loadings in the Categorical Principal Component Analysis were higher than 0.74. Conclusion: Taking into consideration, The Turkish version of the Patient Health Engagement Scale has good psychometric properties for evaluating the patient engagement phases and can be used by the Turkish-speaking community.

Keywords:

chronic disease, nursing, patient engagement, validity and reliability,

PDF

___

1. Graffigna G, Barello S, Libreri C, Bosio CA. How to engage type-2 diabetic patients in their own health management: implications for clinical practice. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:648.
2. Wyatt KD, Stuart LM, Brito JP, Carranza Leon B, Domecq JP, Prutsky GJ et al. Out of context: clinical practice guidelines and patients with multiple chronic conditions: a systematic review. Med Care. 2014;52:92-100.
3. Barello S, Graffigna G, Vegni E, Savarese M, Lombardi F, Bosio AC. ‘Engage me in taking care of my heart’: a grounded theory study on patient– cardiologist relationship in the hospital management of heart failure. BMJ Open. 2015;5:E005582
4. Graffigna G, Barello S, Bonanomi A, Lozza E. Measuring patient engagement: development and psychometric properties of the Patient Health Engagement (PHE) scale. Front Psychol. 2015;6:274.
5. Graffigna G, Barello S, Bonanomi A, Riva G. Factors affecting patients’ online health information-seeking behaviors: the role of the Patient Health Engagement (PHE) Model. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100- 10:1918-27.
6. Mazzoni D, Cornet A, Leeuw B, Myllys K, Cicognani E. Living with systemic lupus erythematosus: A patient engagement perspective. Musculoskeletal Care. 2018;16:67-73.
7. Pelletier LR, Stichler JF. Action brief: patient engagement and activation: a health reform imperative and improvement opportunity for nursing. Nurs Outlook. 2013;61:51-4.
8. Laschinger HK, Gilbert S, Smith LM, Smith LM, Leslie K. Towards a comprehensive theory of nurse/patient empowerment: applying Kanter’s empowerment theory to patient care. J Nurs Manag. 2010;18:4-13.
9. Barello S, Graffigna G, Pitacco G, Mislej M, Cortale M, Provenzi L. An educational intervention to train professional nurses in promoting patient engagement: a pilot feasibility study. Front Physiol. 2017;7:2020.
10. Van Campen C, Van Santvoort M. Explaining low subjective well-being of persons with disabilities in Europe: The impact of disability, personal resources, participation and socio-economic status. Soc Indic Res. 2013;111:839-854.
11. Manary MP, Boulding W, Staelin R, Glickman SW. The patient experience and health outcomes. New Engl J Med. 2013;368:201-3.
12. Barello S, Graffigna G, Savarese M, Claudio BA. Engaging patients in health management: towards a preliminary theoretical conceptualization. Psicologia della Salute. 2014;3:11-33.
13. Lubetkin EI, Lu W-H, Gold MR. Levels and correlates of patient activation in health center settings: building strategies for improving health outcomes. J Health Care Poor U. 2010;21:796-808.
14. Hibbard JH, Greene J. What the evidence shows about patient activation: Better health outcomes and care experiences; fewer data on costs. Health Affair. 2013;32:207-14.
15. Barello S, Graffigna G. Engaging patients to recover life projectuality: an Italian cross-disease framework. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:1087-96.
16. Hibbard JH, Mahoney ER, Stock R, Tusler M. Do increases in patient activation result in improved self‐ management behaviors? Health Serv Res. 2007;42:1443-63.
17. Zolnierek KBH, DiMatteo MR. Physician communication and patient adherence to treatment: a meta-analysis. Med Care. 2009;47:826.
18. Bonaventura KR, Milner KA. Patient engagement in management of warfarin: A quality improvement study. J Nurse Pract. 2016;12:E105-9.
19. Wilson SR, Strub P, Buist AS, Knowles SB, Lavori PW, Lapidus J et al. Shared treatment decision making improves adherence and outcomes in poorly controlled asthma. Am J Resp Crit Care. 2010;181:566-77.
20. Milner KA, Bonaventura KR. Self-management of Warfarin: An approach to increase patient engagement in care. J Nurse Pract. 2017;13:E389-93.
21. Hibbard JH, Greene J, Overton V. Patients with lower activation associated with higher costs; delivery systems should know their patients ‘scores’. Health Affair. 2013;32:216-22.
22. Oshima LE, Emanuel EJ. Shared decision making to improve care and reduce costs. New Engl J Med. 2013;368:6-8.
23. Graffigna G, Barello S. The value of measuring patient engagement in healthcare: new frontiers for healthcare quality. In Promoting Patient Engagement and Participation for Effective Healthcare Reform, ed G Graffigna): 192-214. Hershey, PA, IGI Global, 2016.
24. Zhang Y, Graffigna G, Bonanomi A, Choi KC, Barello S, Mao P. Adaptation and validation of a Chinese version of Patient Health Engagement Scale for patients with chronic disease. Front Psychol. 2017;8:104.
25. Magallares A, Graffigna G, Barello S, Bonanomi A, Lozza E. Spanish adaptation of the Patient Health Engagement scale (S. PHE-s) in patients with chronic diseases. Psicothema. 2017;29:408-13.
26. Streiner DL. Figuring out factors: the use and misuse of factor analysis. Can J Psychiatry. 1994;39:135-40. 27. Tinsley HE, Tinsley DJ. Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. J Couns Psychol 1987;34:414.
28. Jöreskog K, Sörbom D. LISREL-VII Users Reference Guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software. Inc, 1989.
29. Graffigna G, Barello S, Bonanomi A. The role of Patient Health Engagement Model (PHE-model) in affecting patient activation and medication adherence: A structural equation model. PloS one 2017;12: e0179865.
30. WHO. Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/ research_tools/translation/en/ (accessed Jan 2019). 31. Alpar R. Uygulamalı İstatistik ve Geçerlik-Güvenirlik: Spor, Sağlık ve Eğitim Bilimlerinden Örneklerle. Ankara, Detay Yayıncılık, 2010.
32. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol. 1975;28:563-75.
33. Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice. Philadelphia: PA, Lippincott Williams&Wilkins, 2012.
34. Wright B, Linacre J, Gustafson J. Reasonable meansquare fit values. Rasch Meas Trans. 1994;8:370.
35. Bonanomi A, Cantaluppi G, Ruscone MN, Osmetti S. A new estimator of Zumbo’s Ordinal Alpha: a copula approach. Quality Quantity. 2015;49:941-53.
36. Bonanomi A, Nai Ruscone M, Osmetti SA. Reliability measurement for polytomous ordinal items: the empirical polychoric ordinal Alpha. Quaderni di Statistica. 2012;14:53-6.
37. Gliem JA and Gliem RR. Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. In: 2003, Midwest Research-toPractice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education.
38. Yurdugül H. Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında kapsam geçerliği için kapsam geçerlik indekslerinin kullanılması. XIV Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi Özet Kitabı, Denizli, 28-30 Eylül 2005;1:771-4.
39. Zuckerman B, Margolis PA, Mate KS. Health services innovation: The time is now. JAMA. 2013;309:1113- 4.
40. Graffigna G, Barello S, Bonanomi A, et al. Measuring patient activation in Italy: translation, adaptation and validation of the Italian version of the patient activation measure 13 (PAM13-I). BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2015b;15:109.
41. Graffigna G. Promoting Patient Engagement and Participation for Effective Healthcare Reform. IGI Global, 2016.