These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The Chinese version of patient experience with treatment and self-management (PETS vs. 2.0): translation and validation in patients with multimorbidity in primary care in Hong Kong.
    Author: Xu Z, Zhang D, Zhao Y, Ghosh A, Peiris D, Li Y, Wong SYS.
    Journal: J Patient Rep Outcomes; 2024 Aug 02; 8(1):82. PubMed ID: 39093529.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Validated and comprehensive tools to measure treatment burden are needed for healthcare professionals to understand the treatment burden of patients in China. The study aimed to translate and validate the Chinese version of Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS vs. 2.0) in patients with multimorbidity in primary care. METHODOLOGY: The translation process of the 60-item PETS vs. 2.0 followed the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Translation, Formatting, and Testing Guidelines. Computer-assisted assessments were conducted in adult primary care patients with multimorbidity from three general out-patient clinics in Hong Kong. A sample of 502 patients completed the assessments from July to December 2023. Internal reliability was examined using Cronbach's alphas for each domain of the PETS vs. 2.0. Concurrent validity was assessed through the correlations between different domains of PETS vs. 2.0 with established measures including quality of life, frailty, and depression. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood method was carried out to assess the construct validity. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 64.9 years old and 56.2% were female. Internal consistency reliability was acceptable (alpha ≥ 0.70) for most domains. Higher scores of PETS domains were significantly correlated with worse quality of life, higher level of frailty, and more depressive symptoms (p < 0.05). In CFA, after setting the covariances on the error variances, the adjusted model revealed an acceptable model fit (χ2/df = 1.741; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.038; standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.058; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.911; Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.903). All standardized factor loadings were 0.30 or above. Significant positive correlations between the latent factors were found for all factor pairs (correlation coefficient < 0.8). CONCLUSIONS: The Chinese version of PETS vs. 2.0 is a reliable and valid tool for assessing the perceived treatment burden in patients with multimorbidity in primary care. All domains and items in the original questionnaires were retained.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]