The patient engagement evaluation tool was valid for clinical practice guideline development

Ainsley Moore¹, Yin Wu², Linda Kwakkenbos³, Kyle Silveira⁴, Sharon Straus⁵, Melissa Brouwers⁶, Roland Grad⁷, Brett D Thombs⁸

Affiliations

¹ Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, McMaster, Ontario, Canada.
² Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
³ Department of Clinical Psychology, Behavioral Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
⁴ Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario.
⁵ Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario. Electronic address: Sharon.straus@utoronto.ca.
⁶ School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
⁷ Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
⁸ Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Biomedical Ethics Unit, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

PMID: 34852275
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.11.034

The patient engagement evaluation tool was valid for clinical practice guideline development

Ainsley Moore et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Mar.

. 2022 Mar:143:61-72.

doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.11.034. Epub 2021 Nov 28.

Authors

Ainsley Moore¹, Yin Wu², Linda Kwakkenbos³, Kyle Silveira⁴, Sharon Straus⁵, Melissa Brouwers⁶, Roland Grad⁷, Brett D Thombs⁸

Affiliations

¹ Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, McMaster, Ontario, Canada.
² Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
³ Department of Clinical Psychology, Behavioral Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
⁴ Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario.
⁵ Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario. Electronic address: Sharon.straus@utoronto.ca.
⁶ School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
⁷ Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
⁸ Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Biomedical Ethics Unit, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

PMID: 34852275
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.11.034

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate reliability and validity of the six and 12 item Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PEET) to inform guideline developers about the quality of patient and public involvement activities.

Study design and setting: PEET-12 and three embedded validation questions were completed by patients and members of the public who participated in developing 10 guidelines between 2018 and 2020. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess the validity of a single-dimension factor structure. Cronbach's alpha and Pearson correlations were calculated for internal consistency reliability. Concurrent validation was used to test the construct validity.

Results: A total of 290 participants completed the PEET-12. To improve tool efficiency, based on results indicating redundancy from initial item analysis and experts' review, six of 12 items were included in the final tool (PEET-6). For the PEET-6, CFA supported the single-factor structure (χ²(15) = 5173.4, P < 0.001, Tucker-Lewis Index = 1.00, Comparative Fit Index = 0.99, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.08). Correlation between the total score for the 3 validation questions and the PEET-6 total score was 0.71, 95% CI [0.65, 0.77], supporting construct validity.

Conclusion: PEET-6 and 12 are valid tools to measure patient and public involvement within settings of clinical practice guideline development.

Keywords: Clinical practice; engagement; engagement assessment; guideline development; patient involvement; public involvement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

Actions

MeSH terms

Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions

Save citation to file

Email citation

Add to Collections

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

The patient engagement evaluation tool was valid for clinical practice guideline development

Affiliations

The patient engagement evaluation tool was valid for clinical practice guideline development

Authors

Affiliations

Abstract

Publication types

MeSH terms