Maastricht University, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Department of Family Medicine, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Radboud University Medical Centre, Department of Primary and Community Care, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
PLoS One. 2020 Mar 10;15(3):e0229771. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229771. eCollection 2020.
Enhancing the self-management activities of patients improves the quality of care and is an integrated element of current healthcare provision. However, self-management support (SMS) is not yet common in healthcare. The Primary Care Resources and Support for Self-Management (PCRS) is a tool for healthcare professionals to assess the quality of SMS. In this study, we assessed the validity and reliability of the Dutch version of the PCRS.
The validation of the PCRS was performed in Dutch healthcare centres. Correlations between the PCRS scores and the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) and Clinician Support for Patient Activation Measure (CS-PAM) scores were calculated to assess the convergent and discriminant validity. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to test the factor structure. Lastly, the internal consistency and face validity were assessed.
The convergent and discriminant validity were good, with respective correlations of 0.730 (p < 0.001) and 0.030 (p > 0.050) between the PCRS and the ACIC SMS subscale and the PCRS and the CS-PAM. Although 49% of the variance of the PCRS was explained by one factor, the CFA could not confirm a fit between a one-factor model and the data. The reliability was excellent (Cronbach's α = 0.921).
The PCRS showed good validity and excellent internal consistency. However, the evidence for its validity was inconclusive. We therefore suggest rephrasing specific items.
提高患者的自我管理活动可以提高护理质量，是当前医疗保健服务的一个综合组成部分。然而，自我管理支持（SMS）在医疗保健中尚未普及。初级保健资源和自我管理支持工具（PCRS）是医疗保健专业人员评估 SMS 质量的工具。在这项研究中，我们评估了荷兰语版 PCRS 的有效性和可靠性。
在荷兰医疗中心进行了 PCRS 的验证。计算了 PCRS 评分与慢性病护理评估（ACIC）和临床医生支持患者激活测量（CS-PAM）评分之间的相关性，以评估其收敛有效性和判别有效性。进行验证性因子分析（CFA）以检验其因子结构。最后，评估了内部一致性和表面有效性。
收敛有效性和判别有效性良好，PCR 与 ACIC SMS 分量表之间的相关性分别为 0.730（p < 0.001）和 0.030（p > 0.050），与 CS-PAM 的相关性分别为 0.730（p < 0.001）和 0.030（p > 0.050）。虽然 PCRS 的 49%的方差可以用一个因素来解释，但 CFA 不能证实一个因素模型与数据之间的拟合。可靠性极好（Cronbach's α = 0.921）。
PCRS 显示出良好的有效性和极好的内部一致性。然而，其有效性的证据并不确定。因此，我们建议重新措辞特定项目。
