Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 May 13;10(5):e0126553.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126553. eCollection 2015.

Assessment of patient empowerment--a systematic review of measures

Paul J Barr  1 , Isabelle Scholl  2 , Paulina Bravo  3 , Marjan J Faber  4 , Glyn Elwyn  1 , Marion McAllister  5
Affiliations

Assessment of patient empowerment--a systematic review of measures

Paul J Barr et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: Patient empowerment has gained considerable importance but uncertainty remains about the best way to define and measure it. The validity of empirical findings depends on the quality of measures used. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of studies assessing psychometric properties of questionnaires purporting to capture patient empowerment, evaluate the methodological quality of these studies and assess the psychometric properties of measures identified.

Methods: Electronic searches in five databases were combined with reference tracking of included articles. Peer-reviewed articles reporting psychometric testing of empowerment measures for adult patients in French, German, English, Portuguese and Spanish were included. Study characteristics, constructs operationalised and psychometric properties were extracted. The quality of study design, methods and reporting was assessed using the COSMIN checklist. The quality of psychometric properties was assessed using Terwee's 2007 criteria.

Findings: 30 studies on 19 measures were included. Six measures are generic, while 13 were developed for a specific condition (N=4) or specialty (N=9). Most studies tested measures in English (N=17) or Swedish (N=6). Sample sizes of included studies varied from N=35 to N=8261. A range of patient empowerment constructs was operationalised in included measures. These were classified into four domains: patient states, experiences and capacities; patient actions and behaviours; patient self-determination within the healthcare relationship and patient skills development. Quality assessment revealed several flaws in methodological study quality with COSMIN scores mainly fair or poor. The overall quality of psychometric properties of included measures was intermediate to positive. Certain psychometric properties were not tested for most measures.

Discussion: Findings provide a basis from which to develop consensus on a core set of patient empowerment constructs and for further work to develop a (set of) appropriately validated measure(s) to capture this. The methodological quality of psychometric studies could be improved by adhering to published quality criteria.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: PJB, IS, PJB, MF and MMcA declare that they have no competing interests. GE provides ad hoc consulting to Emmi Solutions, a producer of patient decision support tools, and holds a number of research grants in the area of shared decision-making. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. PRISMA flow chart of study selection.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Wallerstein N. What is the evidence on effectiveness of empowerment to improve health? Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe. Health Evidence Network report. 2006. Available: http://www.euro.who.int/Document/E88086.pdf. Accessed 23 April 2014.
    1. The Lancet Editorial: Patient empowerment—who empowers whom? The Lacet. 2012; 379: 1677 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60699-0 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Anderson RM, Funnell MM. Patient empowerment: reflections on the challenge of fostering the adoption of a new paradigm. Patient Educ Couns. 2005; 57: 153–157. - PubMed
    1. Coulter A, Entwistle V, Gilbert D. Sharing decisions with patients: is the information good enough? BMJ. 1999; 318: 318–322. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Guadagnoli E, Ward P. Patient participation in decision-making. Soc Sci Med. 1998; 47: 329–339. - PubMed

Publication types