Elizabeth A Rogers, Kathleen J Yost, Jordan K Rosedahl, Mark Linzer, Deborah H Boehm, Azra Thakur, Sara Poplau, Roger T Anderson, David T Eton
Abstract
To validate a comprehensive general measure of treatment burden, the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-Management (PETS), in people with diabetes.
We conducted a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional survey study with 120 people diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and at least one additional chronic illness. Surveys included established patient-reported outcome measures and a 48-item version of the PETS, a new measure comprised of multi-item scales assessing the burden of chronic illness treatment and self-care as it relates to nine domains: medical information, medications, medical appointments, monitoring health, interpersonal challenges, health care expenses, difficulty with health care services, role activity limitations, and physical/mental exhaustion from self-management. Internal reliability of PETS scales was determined using Cronbach's alpha. Construct validity was determined through correlation of PETS scores with established measures (measures of chronic condition distress, medication satisfaction, self-efficacy, and global well-being), and known-groups validity through comparisons of PETS scores across clinically distinct groups. In an exploratory test of predictive validity, step-wise regressions were used to determine which PETS scales were most associated with outcomes of chronic condition distress, overall physical and mental health, and medication adherence.
Respondents were 37-88 years old, 59% female, 29% non-white, and 67% college-educated. PETS scales showed good reliability (Cronbach's alphas ≥0.74). Higher PETS scale scores (greater treatment burden) were correlated with more chronic condition distress, less medication convenience, lower self-efficacy, and worse general physical and mental health. Participants less (versus more) adherent to medications and those with more (versus fewer) health care financial difficulties had higher mean PETS scores. Medication burden was the scale that was most consistently associated with well-being and patient-reported adherence.
The PETS is a reliable and valid measure for assessing perceived treatment burden in people coping with diabetes.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
5
9%
Social Sciences
4
7%
Psychology
3
5%
Other
7
12%
Unknown
16
28%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 February 2018.
All research outputs
#8,537,346
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Patient related outcome measures
#57
of 196 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,439
of 340,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient related outcome measures
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 196 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,752 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.
