4.5 Article

Psychometric Properties and Effects on Health Outcomes of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) in Korean Hemodialysis Patients

期刊

HEALTHCARE
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10061149

关键词

health outcomes; chronic care model; patient assessment; hemodialysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the psychometric properties of the Korean-translated patient assessment of chronic illness care (PACIC) in patients with ESRD, and found that PACIC score was associated with the health behaviors and outcomes of patients.
Background: The satisfaction of patients receiving integrated care with End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) is widely advocated and patients with ESRD have special health needs, but few studies have investigated whether integrated care was associated with health outcomes. Our aims were to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Korean-translated patient assessment of chronic illness care (PACIC) in patients with ESRD, and to evaluate whether PACIC evaluated by patients was associated with health outcomes. Methods: ESRD patients on hemodialysis (n = 172) at 2 dialysis centers. Data quality, internal consistency and correlation between items and scales were assessed. To test the external validity, the association between PACIC and the health behaviour and outcomes of hemodialysis patients was analyzed. Results: The mean score of the PACIC items was 3.0. The item-scale correlation (0.67-0.85) and test-retest correlation (0.72-0.82) regarding scales for internal consistency showed excellent consistency. Total PACIC score was significantly associated with dietary self-efficacy (beta = 0.22) and serum potassium (Exp(B) = 1.65). Higher overall PACIC score was significantly associated with higher physical health status (beta = 3.52). Conclusions: The Korean-translated PACIC questionnaire is a tool with reliability and validity. Comprehensive treatment strategies for ESRD patients may improve their health behaviors and outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据