The Patient Activation Measure-13 (PAM-13) in an oncology patient population: psychometric properties and dimensionality evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment and enhancement of health-related skills among oncology patients are pivotal for optimizing cancer care. The Patient Activation Measure (PAM-13), a questionnaire designed to reflect an individual's knowledge, skills, and confidence in self-healthcare management, has been validated across diverse countries and settings. Concerns have been raised regarding the cross-situational applicability, as patients with specific diseases and cultural backgrounds interpret questionnaire items differently. This study aimed to examine the structural validity and psychometric properties of the PAM-13 in an oncological patient cohort. METHODS: Baseline data from a longitudinal non-randomized controlled study involving cancer out-patients (n = 1,125) from Comprehensive Cancer Centres in Southern Germany were analysed. The German version of the PAM-13 was employed. With classical test and item response theory methods data quality, reliability, convergent and structural validity, as well as psychometric properties were assessed. Exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were employed to investigate the postulated unidimensionality of the underlying construct. With a partial credit model (PCM) we examined item fit, targeting, local independence and differential item functioning. RESULTS: Participants were predominantly female (73.0%) with a breast cancer diagnosis (41.3%). While items were generally well-accepted, ceiling effects were observed and a high mean PAM-13 score (69.7, SD = 14.2) was noted, potentially compromising responsiveness to interventions. Reliability was adequate (Cronbach's α = 0.81), person and item separation reliability were good to excellent (0.81 and 0.99, respectively). Explorations of the unidimensionality of the construct (EFA, CFA, PCM) yielded inconclusive results, hinting towards a two-factor solution. Item difficulty rankings deviated from the original. No differential item functioning was identified, and local independence was confirmed. CONCLUSIONS: While the PAM-13 serves as a valuable instrument for comprehending and promoting health-related skills in cancer patients, the identification of ceiling effects, disordered item-difficulty rankings, and inconclusive findings regarding unidimensionality contribute to the expanding body of evidence, emphasizing the dependency of PAM-13's validity and reliability on distinctive characteristics within the population under investigation. Future research should prioritize refining or adding PAM-13 items to better capture the specific health-related challenges within diverse populations, paving the way for more effective patient engagement strategies in oncology. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00021779.

Protocol for the process evaluation of a counselling intervention designed to educate cancer patients on complementary and integrative health care and promote interprofessional collaboration in this area (the CCC-Integrativ study).

BACKGROUND: Conducting a process evaluation is essential to understand how health interventions work in different healthcare settings. Particularly in the case of complex interventions, it is important to find out whether the intervention could be carried out as planned and which factors had a beneficial or hindering effect on its implementation. The aim of this study is to present the detailed protocol of the process evaluation embedded in the controlled implementation study CCC-Integrativ aiming to implement an interprofessional counselling program for cancer patients on complementary and integrative health care (CIH). METHODS: This mixed methods study will draw upon the "Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research" (CFIR) combined with the concept of "intervention fidelity" to evaluate the quality of the interprofessional counselling sessions, to explore the perspective of the directly and indirectly involved healthcare staff, as well as to analyze the perceptions and experiences of the patients. The qualitative evaluation phase consists of analyzing audio-recorded counselling sessions, as well as individual and group interviews with the involved persons. The quantitative evaluation phase applies questionnaires which are distributed before (T0), at the beginning (T1), in the middle (T2) and at the end (T3) of the intervention delivery. DISCUSSION: This protocol provides an example of how a process evaluation can be conducted parallel to a main study investigating and implementing a complex intervention. The results of this mixed methods research will make it possible to identify strengths and weaknesses of the team-based intervention, and to target more specifically the key factors and structures required to implement healthcare structures to meet patients' unmet needs in the context of CIH. To our knowledge, this study is the first applying the CFIR framework in the context of interprofessional CIH counselling, and its results are expected to provide comprehensive and multidisciplinary management of cancer patients with complex supportive healthcare needs.