The patient enablement instrument for back pain: reliability, content validity, construct validity and responsiveness

Background Currently, there are no outcome measures assessing the ability of people with non-specific low back pain to self-manage their illness. Inspired by the ‘Patient Enablement Instrument’, we developed the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP). The aim of this study was to describe the development of the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP) and investigate content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, test–retest reliability, measurement error, responsiveness and floor and ceiling effects. Methods The PEI-BP consists of 6 items that are rated on a 0–10 Numeric Rating Scale. Measurement properties were evaluated using the COSMIN taxonomy and were based on three cohorts from primary care with low back pain: The content validity cohort (N = 14) which participated in semi-structured interviews, the GLA:D® Back cohort (N = 272) and the test–retest cohort (N = 37) which both completed self-reported questionnaires. For construct validity and responsiveness, enablement was compared to disability (Oswestry Disability Index), back pain beliefs (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire), fear avoidance (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire—physical activity), mental health (SF-36), educational level and number of previous episodes of low back pain. Results The PEI-BP was found to have acceptable content validity, construct validity, reliability (internal consistency, test–retest reliability and measurement error) and responsiveness. The Smallest Detectable Change was 10.1 points illustrating that a patient would have to change more than 1/6 of the scale range for it to be a true change. A skewed distribution towards the high scores were found at baseline indicating a potentially problematic ceiling effect in the current population. Conclusions The PEI-BP can be considered a valid and reliable tool to measure enablement on people seeking care for non-specific LBP. Further testing of the PEI-BP in populations with more severe LBP is recommended. Trial registration: Not applicable.

The Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain: Reliability, Content Validity, Construct Validity and Responsiveness

Background Currently, there are no outcome measures assessing the ability of people with non-specific low back pain to self-manage their illness. Inspired by the ‘Patient Enablement Instrument’, we developed the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP). The aim of this study was to describe the development of the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP) and investigate content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, measurement error, responsiveness and floor and ceiling effects.Methods The PEI-BP consists of 6 items that are rated on a 0-10 Numeric Rating Scale. Measurement properties were evaluated using the COSMIN taxonomy and were based on three cohorts from primary care with low back pain: The content validity cohort (N=14) which participated in semi-structured interviews, the GLA:D Back cohort (N=272) and the test-retest cohort (N=37) which both completed self-reported questionnaires. For construct validity and responsiveness, enablement was compared to disability (Oswestry Disability Index), back pain beliefs (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire), fear avoidance (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire – physical activity), mental health (SF-36), educational level and number of previous episodes of low back pain.Results The PEI-BP was found to have acceptable content validity, construct validity, reliability (internal consistency, test-retest reliability and measurement error) and responsiveness. The Smallest Detectable Change was 10.1 points illustrating that a patient would have to change more than 1/6 of the scale range for it to be a true change. A skewed distribution towards the high scores were found at baseline indicating a potentially problematic ceiling effect in the current population.Conclusions The PEI-BP can be considered a valid and reliable tool to measure enablement on people seeking care for non-specific LBP. Further testing of the PEI-BP in populations with more severe LBP is recommended.Trial registration: not applicable

The validity, reliability, sensitivity and responsiveness of a modified Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI-2) as a tool for serial measurements of health enablement

Background Patient enablement is a core tenet of patient-centred and holistic primary care. The Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) is a transitional measure limited in its ability to measure changes over time. A modified version, PEI-2, has been developed to measure enablement at a given time-point without comparison to a recalled baseline. Objective To assess the validity, reliability, sensitivity and responsiveness of PEI-2. Methods PEI-2 was modified from the Chinese PEI to assess enablement over 4 weeks in a prospective cohort study nested within a community support programme [Trekkers Family Enhancement Scheme (TFES)] in Hong Kong. Construct validity was assessed by factor analysis and convergent validity by Spearman’s correlations with health-related quality of life and depressive symptoms. Internal reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. Test–retest reliability was assessed by intraclass correlation (ICC), responsiveness by 12–24-month change in PEI-2 score and sensitivity by differences in change of PEI-2 score between TFES participants and a control group. Results PEI-2 demonstrated construct validity with all items loading on one factor (factor loadings >0.7). Convergent validity was confirmed by significant correlations with 12-item Short Form Questionnaire, version 2 (r = 0.1089–0.1919) and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (r = −0.2030). Internal reliability was high (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.9095) and test–retest reliability moderate (ICC = 0.520, P = 0.506). Significant improvements in PEI-2 scores among the TFES group suggested good responsiveness (P < 0.001). The difference in change of PEI-2 scores between TFES and control was significant (P = 0.008), indicating good sensitivity. Conclusions This study supports the validity, reliability, sensitivity and responsiveness of PEI-2 in measuring changes in enablement, making it a promising tool for evaluating enablement in cohort and intervention studies.

The validity and reliability of the patient enablement instrument (PEI) after GP appointments in Finnish health care centres

Background The aim of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) in Finnish health care centre patients. A pilot study was conducted to assess the content validity of the PEI. A questionnaire study in three health care centres in Western Finland was performed in order to assess acceptability, construct validity, internal consistency, and measurement error of the instrument. A telephone interview 2 weeks after the appointment was performed to evaluate reproducibility. Results The pilot study with 17 participants indicated good content validity of the PEI. In the questionnaire study, altogether 483 with a completed PEI score were included in the analyses. Factor analysis and item-scale correlations suggested high structural validity. The internal consistency of the instrument was high (Cronbach’s α = 0.93). The PEI score diminished strongly over the two-week period. Conclusions The PEI has good content validity and acceptability, good construct validity, high internal consistency but low reproducibility. Thus, the PEI seems to be an applicable tool to measure patient enablement in Finnish primary health care.

Rehabilitation in palliative care: a qualitative study of team professionals

ObjectivesThere has been a recent drive to embed rehabilitation within palliative care. The concept of rehabilitative palliative care has been advocated to help patients preserve function and independence, through greater patient enablement and self-management. Such an approach requires engagement from all members of the palliative care team. There is a lack of understanding of such viewpoints. The objective of this research was to explore hospice-based palliative care professionals’ understanding and perceptions of rehabilitation.MethodsQualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted. Eighteen hospice-based healthcare professionals were recruited from a hospice in central Scotland. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed.ResultsOverall, participants clearly articulated the underlying values and benefits of rehabilitative palliative care. Emphasis was placed on ensuring that rehabilitation was appropriately tailored to each individual patient. There was more ambiguity regarding the pragmatic implementation of rehabilitative palliative care, with a number of barriers and facilitators identified.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that hospice-based palliative care professionals would be receptive to further implementation of rehabilitative palliative care. A lack of conceptual clarity among palliative care professionals may be a barrier to the effective implementation of rehabilitative palliative care. At an organisational level, this would require clarification of the approach, and additional training involving all members of the multidisciplinary team.