Cargando…

Clinicians’ beliefs and attitudes toward patient self-management in the Netherlands; translation and testing of the American Clinician Support for Patient Activation Measure (CS-PAM)

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to test the Dutch version of the Clinician Support for Patient Activation Measure (CS-PAM), to explore the beliefs of Dutch clinicians about patients’ self-management, and to establish whether there are differences in this respect between general practitioners a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rademakers, Jany, Jansen, Daphne, van der Hoek, Lucas, Heijmans, Monique
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4419501/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25889832
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-0799-y
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to test the Dutch version of the Clinician Support for Patient Activation Measure (CS-PAM), to explore the beliefs of Dutch clinicians about patients’ self-management, and to establish whether there are differences in this respect between general practitioners and other primary care providers. METHODS: The CS-PAM was translated in Dutch and data were collected in a sample of 489 general practitioners and other primary care providers. Statistical analyses (RASCH, Cronbach’s α) were performed to establish the psychometric properties of the instrument. RESULTS: The psychometric scores of the Dutch CS-PAM were acceptable to good, and the difficulty level and structure was comparable to that of the original instrument. The average score of Dutch clinicians on the CS-PAM was 65.1 (SD 10.7), somewhat lower compared to their colleagues in the US (69; SD 12.1) and the UK (69, SD 12.8). Dutch general practitioners scored significantly lower on the CS-PAM compared to other primary care providers. CONCLUSIONS: The Dutch CS-PAM is a reliable instrument to measure beliefs of clinicians regarding patient self-management. Further validation studies are necessary to establish the distribution of scores in specific provider populations and to assess the clinical relevance of the instrument for different outcomes. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0799-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.