IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i23p4867-d293601.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

PEN-13: A New Generic 13-Item Questionnaire for Measuring Patient Enablement (German Version)

Author

Listed:
  • Achim Siegel

    (Institute of Occupational and Social Medicine and Health Services Research, University Hospital Tübingen, Wilhelmstraße 27, 72074 Tübingen, Germany)

  • Anna T. Ehmann

    (Institute of Occupational and Social Medicine and Health Services Research, University Hospital Tübingen, Wilhelmstraße 27, 72074 Tübingen, Germany)

  • Ingo Meyer

    (PMV Forschungsgruppe, University of Cologne, Herderstraße 52, 50391 Cologne, Germany)

  • Oliver Gröne

    (OptiMedis AG, Burchardstraße 17, 20095 Hamburg, Germany
    London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of London, London WC1E 7HT, UK)

  • Wilhelm Niebling

    (Division of General Practice, University Medical Center Freiburg, 79910 Freiburg, Germany)

  • Peter Martus

    (Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Applied Biometry, University Hospital Tübingen, Silcherstr. 5, 72076 Tübingen, Germany)

  • Monika A. Rieger

    (Institute of Occupational and Social Medicine and Health Services Research, University Hospital Tübingen, Wilhelmstraße 27, 72074 Tübingen, Germany)

Abstract

Background : The purpose of our study was to develop and psychometrically test a German-language survey instrument that measures patient enablement generically and in greater detail than previous instruments. Methods : A multidisciplinary team developed 13 items to capture individual aspects of patient enablement (PEN-13). A pre-test with 26 subjects was followed by a random sample survey of N = 1168 subjects. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted in a random split-half sample of the data to explore PEN-13’s factor structure; a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted in the validation sample. The internal consistency of the factors was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha, PEN-13’s construct validity was checked by means of additional hypothesis testing. Results : The two factors self-management and patient-practitioner interaction, detected in the exploratory analysis, were confirmed with a few modifications in the confirmatory factor analysis, with the comparative fit index (CFI) amounting to 0.903. The Cronbach’s alpha values of those two factors amounted to α = 0.90 and α = 0.82, respectively. The correlations of the PEN-13 score with the ’general self-efficacy’ and ’health literacy’ (HLS-EU-Q16) scores further confirmed its construct validity; the respective correlation coefficients amounted to 0.57 and 0.60. Conclusion : The German version of the survey instrument Patient Enablement Scale—13 items (PEN-13) shows acceptable psychometric properties. Practical implications : PEN-13 seems particularly suitable for health services research purposes. We recommend checking the results in another sample as well as evaluating its responsiveness to enablement-enhancing interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Achim Siegel & Anna T. Ehmann & Ingo Meyer & Oliver Gröne & Wilhelm Niebling & Peter Martus & Monika A. Rieger, 2019. "PEN-13: A New Generic 13-Item Questionnaire for Measuring Patient Enablement (German Version)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:23:p:4867-:d:293601
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/23/4867/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/23/4867/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katja Brenk-Franz & Judith H Hibbard & Wolfram J Herrmann & Tobias Freund & Joachim Szecsenyi & Sima Djalali & Claudia Steurer-Stey & Andreas Sönnichsen & Fabian Tiesler & Monika Storch & Nico Schneid, 2013. "Validation of the German Version of the Patient Activation Measure 13 (PAM13-D) in an International Multicentre Study of Primary Care Patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-6, September.
    2. Mead, Nicola & Bower, Peter & Hann, Mark, 2002. "The impact of general practitioners' patient-centredness on patients' post-consultation satisfaction and enablement," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 283-299, July.
    3. Fumagalli, Lia Paola & Radaelli, Giovanni & Lettieri, Emanuele & Bertele’, Paolo & Masella, Cristina, 2015. "Patient Empowerment and its neighbours: Clarifying the boundaries and their mutual relationships," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(3), pages 384-394.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anna T. Ehmann & Oliver Groene & Monika A. Rieger & Achim Siegel, 2020. "The Relationship between Health Literacy, Quality of Life, and Subjective Health: Results of a Cross-Sectional Study in a Rural Region in Germany," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-12, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rathert, Cheryl & Mittler, Jessica N. & Vogus, Timothy J. & Lee, Yuna S.H., 2023. "Better outcomes through patient – Provider therapeutic connections? An exploratory study of proposed mediating variables," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 338(C).
    2. Schmidt, Henrike & Wild, Eva-Maria & Schreyögg, Jonas, 2021. "Explaining variation in health information seeking behaviour – Insights from a multilingual survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(5), pages 618-626.
    3. Hubert, Philipp & Abdel Hadi, Sascha & Mojzisch, Andreas & Häusser, Jan Alexander, 2022. "The effects of organizational climate on adherence to guidelines for COVID-19 prevention," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    4. Lee, Yin-Yang & Lin, Julia L., 2010. "Do patient autonomy preferences matter? Linking patient-centered care to patient-physician relationships and health outcomes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(10), pages 1811-1818, November.
    5. Augustine Adomah-Afari & Theophilus Maloreh-Nyamekye, 2019. "Enhancing Patient Satisfaction - Relationship Marketing Strategies of Two Specialist Hospitals in Accra, Ghana," International Journal of Social and Administrative Sciences, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 4(2), pages 213-231, June.
    6. Greenfield, Geva & Pliskin, Joseph S. & Feder-Bubis, Paula & Wientroub, Shlomo & Davidovitch, Nadav, 2012. "Patient–physician relationships in second opinion encounters – The physicians’ perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(7), pages 1202-1212.
    7. Giuseppe Russo & Andrea Moretta Tartaglione & Ylenia Cavacece, 2019. "Empowering Patients to Co-Create a Sustainable Healthcare Value," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-20, March.
    8. Sonia Chien-I Chen & Chenglian Liu & Ridong Hu, 2020. "Fad or Trend? Rethinking the Sustainability of Connected Health," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-22, February.
    9. Livio Garattini & Anna Padula, 2018. "Patient empowerment in Europe: is no further research needed?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(5), pages 637-640, June.
    10. Aldona Fraczkiewicz-Wronka & Anna Kozak, 2021. "Facilitating Co-production in Health Promotion: Study of Senior Councils in Poland," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(4B), pages 182-201.
    11. Zandbelt, Linda C. & Smets, Ellen M.A. & Oort, Frans J. & de Haes, Hanneke C.J.M., 2005. "Coding patient-centred behaviour in the medical encounter," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 661-671, August.
    12. Kuili Zhang & Bing Ran, 2022. "Active Health Governance—A Conceptual Framework Based on a Narrative Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-14, February.
    13. Mendick, Nicola & Young, Bridget & Holcombe, Christopher & Salmon, Peter, 2010. "The ethics of responsibility and ownership in decision-making about treatment for breast cancer: Triangulation of consultation with patient and surgeon perspectives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1904-1911, June.
    14. Marisol Hurtado Illanes, 2024. "Exploring Shared Challenges of Empowered Patients and Entrepreneurs: Towards Diversity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship in Post-Crisis Contexts," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-27, July.
    15. Carmela Annarumma & Rocco Palumbo & Ersilia Troiano & Stefania Vezzosi, 2017. "Una misurazione "euristica" dell?alfabetizzazione alimentare: alcuni spunti esplorativi," MECOSAN, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2017(102), pages 61-83.
    16. Mara Gorli & Serena Barello, 2021. "Patient Centredness, Values, Equity and Sustainability: Professional, Organizational and Institutional Implications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-7, November.
    17. Marije Blok & Barbara Groot & Johanna M. Huijg & Alice H. de Boer, 2022. "Older Adults’ Engagement in Residential Care: Pitfalls, Potentials, and the Role of ICTs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-14, March.
    18. Jacobi Elliott & Heather McNeil & Jessica Ashbourne & Kelsey Huson & Veronique Boscart & Paul Stolee, 2016. "Engaging Older Adults in Health Care Decision-Making: A Realist Synthesis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(5), pages 383-393, October.
    19. Zsombor Zrubka & Péter Vékás & Péter Németh & Ágota Dobos & Ottó Hajdu & Levente Kovács & László Gulácsi & Judith Hibbard & Márta Péntek, 2022. "Validation of the PAM-13 instrument in the Hungarian general population 40 years old and above," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(8), pages 1341-1355, November.
    20. Klara Greffin & Holger Muehlan & Neeltje van den Berg & Wolfgang Hoffmann & Oliver Ritter & Michael Oeff & Georg Schomerus & Silke Schmidt, 2021. "Setting-Sensitive Conceptualization and Assessment of Quality of Life in Telemedical Care—Study Protocol of the Tele-QoL Project," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-13, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:23:p:4867-:d:293601. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.