| Title |
Development and validation of an instrument to measure patient engagement in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s171026 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Richard Huan Xu, Annie Wai-Ling Cheung, Eliza Lai-Yi Wong |
| Abstract |
The objective of this study was to develop, pilot test, and psychometrically validate a patient engagement questionnaire, called Patient Engagement Index (PEI), in Hong Kong, China. The method employed was based on a patient engagement framework and literature review and expert panel discussion. A new measure named PEI with 20 items divided into five factors was developed. A pilot study of 40 patients was used to confirm the clarity of PEI. Explored factor analysis was used to confirm the construct validity. Cronbach's alpha, intercorrelation coefficients (ICCs), and weighted kappa were used to assess the internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability separately. Rasch model and differential item functioning were also used to further confirm the fit of the instrument. In all, 324 participants successfully completed the survey. Based on the evaluation of exploratory factor analysis and theoretically considerations, a four-factor structure comprising 20 items was identified. Rasch analysis also confirmed that the model has a good fit (ranging from 0.662 to 1.294). All domains were considered internally consistent (alpha >0.7). Test-retest showed both ICC (>0.6) and weighted kappa (>0.4) meeting the minimum recommended standard. No ceiling or floor effect was found. Furthermore, Spearman's correlation coefficient confirmed that PEI had good internal validity. PEI was shown to have good reliability and validity. This is a short, quick, and appropriate tool to assess the extent of patient engagement in both clinical and research settings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Researcher | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 22 | 51% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 23 | 53% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 September 2018.
All research outputs
#20,755,951
of 25,498,750 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,435
of 1,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,283
of 346,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#48
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,498,750 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,766 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 346,028 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.