Measurement issues in the evaluation of chronic disease self-management programs
To provide an in-depth analysis of outcome measures used in the evaluation of chronic disease self-management programs consistent with the Stanford curricula.
Based on a systematic review on self-management programs, effect sizes derived from reported outcome measures are categorized according to the quality of life appraisal model developed by Schwartz and Rapkin which classifies outcomes from performance-based measures (e.g., clinical outcomes) to evaluation-based measures (e.g., emotional well-being).
The majority of outcomes assessed in self-management trials are based on evaluation-based methods. Overall, effects on knowledge—the only performance-based measure observed in selected trials—are generally medium to large. In contrast, substantially more inconsistent results are found for both perception- and evaluation-based measures that mostly range between nil and small positive effects.
Effectiveness of self-management interventions and resulting recommendations for health policy makers are most frequently derived from highly variable evaluation-based measures, that is, types of outcomes that potentially carry a substantial amount of measurement error and/or bias such as response shift. Therefore, decisions regarding the value and efficacy of chronic disease self-management programs need to be interpreted with care. More research, especially qualitative studies, is needed to unravel cognitive processes and the role of response shift bias in the measurement of change.
KeywordsChronic disease Self-management Patient education Program evaluation Bias Outcomes assessment Quality of life PROMs
- 2.World Health Organization. (2002). Innovative care for chronic conditions: building blocks for action. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
- 5.Lorig, K. R., González, V. M., & Laurent, D. D. (1999). The chronic disease self-management program: Leaders manual. Palo Alto: Stanford University.Google Scholar
- 13.Schwartz, C. E., & Rapkin, B. D. (2004). Reconsidering the psychometrics of quality of life assessment in light of response shift and appraisal. Health Qual Life Outcomes Retrieved April 15, 2006, from http://www.hqlo.com/content/2/1/16.
- 14.Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1985). Cognitive and affective processes in judgements of subjective well-being: A preliminary model. In H. Brandstatter & E. Kirchler (Eds.), Economic psychology (pp. 439–447). Linz, Austria: R. Tauner.Google Scholar
- 17.Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New York, London, Sydney: Wiley.Google Scholar
- 20.Nolte, S., & Osborne, R. H. (2012). A systematic review of outcomes of chronic disease self-management interventions. Quality of Life Research [Epub ahead of print 2012 Oct 31].Google Scholar
- 22.Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- 36.Burckhardt, C. S., Mannerkorpi, K., Hedenberg, L., & Bjelle, A. (1994). A randomized, controlled clinical trial of education and physical training for women with fibromyalgia. Journal of Rheumatology, 21, 714–720.Google Scholar
- 42.Prochaska, J. O., Redding, C. A., & Evers, K. E. (2008). The transtheoretical model and stages of change. In K. Glanz, F. M. Lewis, & B. K. Rimer (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (4th ed., pp. 97–122). San Francisco: Wiley.Google Scholar
- 44.Osborne, R. H., Batterham, R., & Livingston, J. (2011). The evaluation of chronic disease self-management support across settings: The international experience of the health education impact questionnaire monitoring system. Nursing Clinics of North America, 46(3), 255–270.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 46.Osborne, R. H., Elsworth, G. R., & Whitfield, K. (2007). The health education impact questionnaire (heiQ): An outcomes and evaluation measure for patient education and self-management interventions for people with chronic conditions. Patient Education and Counseling, 66, 192–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar