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
. 2017 Oct;10(5):629-642.
doi: 10.1007/s40271-017-0234-z.

Development and Pretesting of a Questionnaire to Assess Patient Experiences and Satisfaction with Medications (PESaM Questionnaire)

Affiliations

Development and Pretesting of a Questionnaire to Assess Patient Experiences and Satisfaction with Medications (PESaM Questionnaire)

Merel L Kimman et al. Patient. 2017 Oct.

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to develop, together with the Lung Foundation Netherlands and Dutch Kidney Patients Association, patients and clinicians, a measure to evaluate patient experiences with the orphan drugs pirfenidone (for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis [IPF]) and eculizumab (for atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome [aHUS]), as well as a generic measure of patient experiences and satisfaction with medications.

Methods: Development of the Patient Experiences and Satisfaction with Medications (PESaM) questionnaire consisted of four phases: literature review (phase I); focus groups and individual patient interviews (phase II); item generation (phase III); and face and content validity testing (phase IV). Literature review aimed to identify existing disease-specific and generic patient experience measures to provide guidance on the domains of medication use relevant to patients, the number of items and type of response categories, and to generate an initial pool of items. Subsequent focus groups and patient interviews were conducted to gain insight into the perceived effectiveness of the therapies, the burden of side effects, and how the medication impacted on a patient's daily life. Focus groups and interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Coding was carried out by highlighting passages in the text and assigning each passage a code representing the following predefined categories: (1) perceived effectiveness; (2) side effects; (3) ease of use; and (4) impact of medication. Using data from phase I and II, a panel of experts selected items relevant for inclusion in the questionnaire. Individual patient interviews with IPF and aHUS patients (n = 18), using a retrospective verbal probing technique, were conducted to assess face validity, time needed to fill out the questionnaire, and content validity.

Results: The PESaM questionnaire that was developed consisted of two disease-specific modules that assessed patient experiences with pirfenidone for the treatment of IPF, and eculizumab for the treatment of aHUS, a generic module, applicable to any medication, and a module to assess patient expectations. Review of the literature identified multiple disease- or medication-specific questionnaires and two generic patient satisfaction questionnaires. Common domains across most questionnaires were effectiveness, side effects, ease of use and overall satisfaction. Patient interviews revealed the social impact (e.g. unable to go outside) of side effects such as photosensitivity associated with pirfenidone and the risk of infection associated with eculizumab. Each PESaM module focuses on patients' perceived effectiveness of the medication, side effects, and ease of use, and the impact these aspects have on physical and emotional health and daily life. The generic module additionally includes items related to satisfaction with the medication. Individual interviews with patients in phase IV confirmed, in general, that questions and response options of the modules were clear and content validity was good. The mean time to complete the modules ranged from 6 min for the disease-specific (aHUS) module to 9 min for the generic module.

Conclusions: We developed the PESaM questionnaire to quantitatively assess patient experiences and satisfaction with medications. A validation study is currently underway to examine the psychometric properties of the PESaM questionnaire.

Keywords: Eculizumab; Focus Group; Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis; Orphan Drug; Patient Experience.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest

Merel Kimman, Adrienne Rotteveel, Marlies Wijsenbeek, Rémy Mostard, Nelleke Tak, Xana van Jaarsveld, Marjolein Storm, Kioa Wijnsma, Marielle Gelens, Nicole van de Kar, Jack Wetzels and Carmen Dirksen have no conflicts of interest, including nonfinancial, that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Funding

This project was funded by The Federation of Patients and Consumer Organisations in The Netherlands (NPCF), Lung Foundation Netherlands, and The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw). We thank Ms Jeanine van der Giessen (M.Sc.), health literacy specialist, University Medical Center Utrecht, for reviewing the questionnaires. We also gratefully acknowledge the support of Ms. Mirjam van Manen (M.Sc.), Ph.D. candidate at the Department of Respiratory Medicine of the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Conceptual framework PESaM questionnaire (adapted from Strasser et al. [18]). Patient expectations regarding drug therapy and outcomes (block A) are evaluated in the expectations module of the PESaM questionnaire. The disease-specific modules assess stimuli (block B) and subjective experiences (block C) related to a specific therapy and patient group. The generic module focuses on subjective experiences (block C) and satisfaction (block D) with any drug therapy. PESaM Patient Experiences and Satisfaction with Medications
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Items of the generic experiences module of the PESaM questionnaire. PESaM Patient Experiences and Satisfaction with Medication

References

    1. 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. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Britten N, Pope C, Halford S, Richeldi L. What if we made stratified medicine work for patients? Lancet Respir Med. 2016;4(1):8–10. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(15)00499-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, Hansen HP, Lo Scalzo A, Mossman J, et al. Patients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(3):334–340. doi: 10.1017/S0266462310000395. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hailey D, Werko S, Bakri R, Cameron A, Gohlen B, Myles S, et al. Involvement of consumers in health technology assessment activities by Inahta agencies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(1):79–83. doi: 10.1017/S026646231200075X. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Krahn M, Naglie G. The next step in guideline development: incorporating patient preferences. JAMA. 2008;300(4):436–438. doi: 10.1001/jama.300.4.436. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources