IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v12y2019i1d10.1007_s40271-018-0340-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validity of the Patient Experiences and Satisfaction with Medications (PESaM) Questionnaire

Author

Listed:
  • Merel L. Kimman

    (Maastricht University Medical Centre)

  • Marlies S. Wijsenbeek

    (University Hospital Rotterdam)

  • Sander M. J. van Kuijk

    (Maastricht University Medical Centre)

  • Kioa L. Wijnsma

    (Amalia Children’s Hospital)

  • Nicole C. A. J. van de Kar

    (Amalia Children’s Hospital)

  • Marjolein Storm

    (Kidney Patients Association)

  • Xana Jaarsveld

    (Lung Foundation Netherlands)

  • Carmen D. Dirksen

    (Maastricht University Medical Centre)

Abstract

Background This study assessed the validity and reliability of the generic module of the recently developed Patient Experiences and Satisfaction with Medications (PESaM) questionnaire in a sample of patients in the Netherlands. Methods The generic module of the PESaM questionnaire consists of 18 items related to the domains effectiveness, side effects and ease of use of medications. It assesses patients’ experiences regarding the impact of the medication on daily life, health and satisfaction. In 2017, the PESaM questionnaire was sent out to idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis patients using pirfenidone or nintedanib, atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome patients receiving eculizumab and patients using tacrolimus after kidney transplantation. Mean scores for each domain were calculated applying a scoring algorithm. Construct validity and reliability were assessed using recommended methods. Results 188 participants completed the generic module, of whom 48% used pirfenidone, 36% nintedanib, 11% tacrolimus and 5% eculizumab. The generic module has good structural properties. Internal consistency values of the domains were satisfactory (i.e. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha above 0.7). Confirmatory factor analysis provided further evidence for construct validity, with good convergent and discriminant validity. The PESaM questionnaire also showed different scores for patients using different medications, in line with expectations, and was therefore able to differentiate between patient groups. Test–retest reliability of the items and domains were rated as moderate to fair (i.e. intraclass coefficients ranged between 0.18 and 0.76). Conclusions The PESaM questionnaire is a unique patient-reported outcome measure evaluating patient experiences and satisfaction with medications. It has been developed in conjunction with patients, ensuring coverage of domains and issues relevant from the patient’s perspective. This study has shown promising validity of the generic module of the PESaM questionnaire. Further research is recommended to assess reliability in greater detail as well as the responsiveness of the measure. Trial registration The study is registered in The Netherlands National Trial Register (Trial Code 5860).

Suggested Citation

  • Merel L. Kimman & Marlies S. Wijsenbeek & Sander M. J. van Kuijk & Kioa L. Wijnsma & Nicole C. A. J. van de Kar & Marjolein Storm & Xana Jaarsveld & Carmen D. Dirksen, 2019. "Validity of the Patient Experiences and Satisfaction with Medications (PESaM) Questionnaire," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(1), pages 149-162, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:12:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-018-0340-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-018-0340-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-018-0340-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-018-0340-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tracey-Lea Laba & Beverley Essue & Merel Kimman & Stephen Jan, 2015. "Understanding Patient Preferences in Medication Nonadherence: A Review of Stated Preference Data," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(5), pages 385-395, October.
    2. Boon, Wouter & Martins, Luis & Koopmanschap, Marc, 2015. "Governance of conditional reimbursement practices in the Netherlands," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 180-185.
    3. Merel L. Kimman & Adrienne H. Rotteveel & Marlies Wijsenbeek & Rémy Mostard & Nelleke C. Tak & Xana van Jaarsveld & Marjolein Storm & Kioa L. Wijnsma & Marielle Gelens & Nicole C. A. J. van de Kar & J, 2017. "Development and Pretesting of a Questionnaire to Assess Patient Experiences and Satisfaction with Medications (PESaM Questionnaire)," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(5), pages 629-642, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. W. Dominika Wranik & Liesl Gambold & Natasha Hanson & Adrian Levy, 2017. "The evolution of the cancer formulary review in Canada: Can centralization improve the use of economic evaluation?," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 232-260, April.
    2. Degtiar, Irina, 2017. "A review of international coverage and pricing strategies for personalized medicine and orphan drugs," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(12), pages 1240-1248.
    3. Jesús López-Torres López & Joseba Rabanales-Sotos & María Rosa López-Torres Hidalgo & Rosa María Milián García & Consuelo López Martínez & Gemma Blázquez Abellán, 2021. "Reliability and Validity of the Treatment Satisfaction with Medicines Questionnaire (SATMED-Q) in Persons with Arterial Hypertension," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-11, March.
    4. Veronika Kalouguina & Joël Wagner, 2020. "Challenges and Solutions for Integrating and Financing Personalized Medicine in Healthcare Systems: A Systematic Literature Review," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-22, November.
    5. Ellen M. Janssen & Jodi B. Segal & John F. P. Bridges, 2016. "A Framework for Instrument Development of a Choice Experiment: An Application to Type 2 Diabetes," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(5), pages 465-479, October.
    6. Löblová, Olga & Csanádi, Marcell & Ozierański, Piotr & Kaló, Zoltán & King, Lawrence & McKee, Martin, 2019. "Alternative access schemes for pharmaceuticals in Europe: Towards an emerging typology," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(7), pages 630-634.
    7. Boon, Wouter P.C. & Aarden, Erik & Broerse, Jacqueline E.W., 2015. "Path creation by public agencies — The case of desirable futures of genomics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 67-76.
    8. Merel L. Kimman & Adrienne H. Rotteveel & Marlies Wijsenbeek & Rémy Mostard & Nelleke C. Tak & Xana van Jaarsveld & Marjolein Storm & Kioa L. Wijnsma & Marielle Gelens & Nicole C. A. J. van de Kar & J, 2017. "Development and Pretesting of a Questionnaire to Assess Patient Experiences and Satisfaction with Medications (PESaM Questionnaire)," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(5), pages 629-642, October.
    9. Belousova, Olga A. & Groen, Aard J. & Ouendag, Aniek M., 2020. "Opportunities and barriers for innovation and entrepreneurship in orphan drug development," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:patien:v:12:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-018-0340-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.