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

Overview

Journal Patient

Specialty Health Services

Date 2018 Oct 28

PMID 30367435

Citations 9

Authors

Merel L Kimman

Marlies S Wijsenbeek

Sander M J van Kuijk

Kioa L Wijnsma

Nicole C A J van de Kar

Marjolein Storm

Xana van Jaarsveld

Carmen D Dirksen

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

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).

Citing Articles

Assessment of health-related quality of life in individuals with interstitial lung diseases in a tertiary care hospital in south India.

DSouza K, Ravichandran T, Venkatnarayan K, Veluthat C, Devaraj U, Ramachandran P Indian J Med Res. 2024; 160(2):246-253.

PMID: 39513210 PMC: 11544569. DOI: 10.25259/IJMR_218_2024.

Patient-reported outcome measures for medication treatment satisfaction: a systematic review of measure development and measurement properties.

Yang M, Zhang P, Halladay J, Zou K, Choonara I, Ji X BMC Med. 2024; 22(1):347.

PMID: 39218858 PMC: 11367775. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-024-03560-3.

How Pharmacogenomics Informs and Influences the Medication Experience.

Olson A, Brown J Innov Pharm. 2024; 14(4).

PMID: 38495361 PMC: 10939485. DOI: 10.24926/iip.v14i4.5796.

Aronson K, Suzuki A Front Med (Lausanne). 2021; 8:745908.

PMID: 34692737 PMC: 8526733. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.745908.

Patient-centered Outcomes Research in Interstitial Lung Disease: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

Aronson K, Danoff S, Russell A, Ryerson C, Suzuki A, Wijsenbeek M Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021; 204(2):e3-e23.

PMID: 34283696 PMC: 8650796. DOI: 10.1164/rccm.202105-1193ST.

References

. EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990; 16(3):199-208. DOI: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9. View

Strasser S, Aharony L, Greenberger D . The patient satisfaction process: moving toward a comprehensive model. Med Care Rev. 1994; 50(2):219-48. DOI: 10.1177/107755879305000205. View

Bensing J . Bridging the gap. The separate worlds of evidence-based medicine and patient-centered medicine. Patient Educ Couns. 2000; 39(1):17-25. DOI: 10.1016/s0738-3991(99)00087-7. View

DiMatteo M, Giordani P, Lepper H, Croghan T . Patient adherence and medical treatment outcomes: a meta-analysis. Med Care. 2002; 40(9):794-811. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200209000-00009. View

Bland J, Altman D . Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 22(1):85-93. DOI: 10.1002/uog.122. View

Atkinson M, Sinha A, Hass S, Colman S, Kumar R, Brod M . Validation of a general measure of treatment satisfaction, the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM), using a national panel study of chronic disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004; 2:12. PMC: 398419. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-2-12. View

Hirsh A, Atchison J, Berger J, Waxenberg L, Lafayette-Lucey A, Bulcourf B . Patient satisfaction with treatment for chronic pain: predictors and relationship to compliance. Clin J Pain. 2005; 21(4):302-10. DOI: 10.1097/01.ajp.0000113057.92184.90. View

Mahajan S, Elkadry E, Kenton K, Shott S, Brubaker L . Patient-centered surgical outcomes: the impact of goal achievement and urge incontinence on patient satisfaction one year after surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 194(3):722-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.08.043. View

Terwee C, Bot S, de Boer M, van der Windt D, Knol D, Dekker J . Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 60(1):34-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012. View

10.

Ruiz M, Pardo A, Rejas J, Soto J, Villasante F, Aranguren J . Development and validation of the "Treatment Satisfaction with Medicines Questionnaire" (SATMED-Q). Value Health. 2008; 11(5):913-26. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00323.x. View

11.

Krahn M, Naglie G . The next step in guideline development: incorporating patient preferences. JAMA. 2008; 300(4):436-8. DOI: 10.1001/jama.300.4.436. View

12.

Jin J, Sklar G, Oh V, Li S . Factors affecting therapeutic compliance: A review from the patient's perspective. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2008; 4(1):269-86. PMC: 2503662. DOI: 10.2147/tcrm.s1458. View

13.

Mokkink L, Terwee C, Patrick D, Alonso J, Stratford P, Knol D . The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010; 19(4):539-49. PMC: 2852520. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8. View

14.

Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, Hansen H, Lo Scalzo A, Mossman J . Patients' perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010; 26(3):334-40. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462310000395. View

15.

Ley B, Collard H, King Jr T . Clinical course and prediction of survival in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010; 183(4):431-40. DOI: 10.1164/rccm.201006-0894CI. View

16.

Golay A . Pharmacoeconomic aspects of poor adherence: can better adherence reduce healthcare costs?. J Med Econ. 2011; 14(5):594-608. DOI: 10.3111/13696998.2011.597808. View

17.

Loirat C, Fremeaux-Bacchi V . Atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2011; 6:60. PMC: 3198674. DOI: 10.1186/1750-1172-6-60. View

18.

Hailey D, Werko S, Bakri R, Cameron A, Gohlen B, Myles S . Involvement of consumers in health technology assessment activities by Inahta agencies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012; 29(1):79-83. DOI: 10.1017/S026646231200075X. View

19.

Black N . Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ. 2013; 346:f167. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f167. View

20.

M van de Bovenkamp H, Zuiderent-Jerak T . An empirical study of patient participation in guideline development: exploring the potential for articulating patient knowledge in evidence-based epistemic settings. Health Expect. 2013; 18(5):942-55. PMC: 5060867. DOI: 10.1111/hex.12067. View