The Patient Activation Measure in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Cross-Sectional Interview-Based Survey.

Lobna Al Juffali, Haya M Almalag, Najd Alswyan, Jawaher Almutairi, Dalal Alsanea, Hussain F Alarfaj, Abdurhman S Alarfaj, Hanan H Abouzaid, Mohammed A Omair
Author Information
  1. Lobna Al Juffali: Department of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. ORCID
  2. Haya M Almalag: Department of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. ORCID
  3. Najd Alswyan: Department of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
  4. Jawaher Almutairi: Department of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
  5. Dalal Alsanea: Department of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
  6. Hussain F Alarfaj: Rheumatology Unit, Department of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
  7. Abdurhman S Alarfaj: Rheumatology Unit, Department of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
  8. Hanan H Abouzaid: Department of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. ORCID
  9. Mohammed A Omair: Rheumatology Unit, Department of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. ORCID

Abstract

Introduction/Objective: The patient activation measure (PAM) is considered a reliable tool for measuring patient activation. This study aimed to systematically review the scientific literature regarding the use of PAM -13 in rheumatology patients and to compare PAM scores in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) following two different practices at a single institution with previously published studies.
Methods: The study consisted of a systematic review of articles reporting the PAM-13 in patients with RA, followed by a cross-sectional study evaluating PAM scores between standard rheumatology clinics and specialized rheumatology clinics (SRCs). The correlation between PAM levels and other variables, such as demographics, disease characteristics, and treatment, was assessed.
Results: Nineteen studies, published between 2012 and 2022, met the inclusion criteria. The studies in this review had inconsistent results and quality, with patient activation in RA ranging from 29 to 76. A total of 197 patients with confirmed RA diagnoses were interviewed (response rate, 88%). Most were female (n=173, 88%) and older than 40 years (n=150, 76%). The average patient activation score was 64.9 (standard deviation, 15.7). Most participants had level 3 and 4 patient activation measures (n=71 [36%] and n=72[37%], respectively). Patients who were attending SRCs also had borderline higher PAM levels. Patients with high PAM scores tended to be older, have active disease, and were taking corticosteroids.
Conclusion: Adequate activation of patients was observed from our center, which was higher than that reported in most published literature. The PAM of patients with RA was variable according to the systematic review. Longitudinal interventional studies should be considered to improve activation in patients with low scores.

Keywords

References

  1. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Oct 29;6(10):e12221 [PMID: 30373732]
  2. Patient Educ Couns. 2012 Aug;88(2):338-43 [PMID: 22459636]
  3. Rheumatol Int. 2016 Mar;36(3):311-24 [PMID: 26563338]
  4. J Clin Nurs. 2014 Apr;23(7-8):1005-17 [PMID: 23875718]
  5. Patient Educ Couns. 2012 Jul;88(1):113-20 [PMID: 22277625]
  6. Nurs Open. 2021 Sep;8(5):2857-2865 [PMID: 33942559]
  7. Patient Educ Couns. 2017 Jan;100(1):5-7 [PMID: 27432014]
  8. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2018 Nov;70(11):1607-1613 [PMID: 29438608]
  9. J Prim Care Community Health. 2020 Jan-Dec;11:2150132720931301 [PMID: 32507012]
  10. BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928 [PMID: 22008217]
  11. Arthritis Rheum. 2010 Sep;62(9):2569-81 [PMID: 20872595]
  12. Int J Rheum Dis. 2016 Jul;19(7):658-64 [PMID: 24839920]
  13. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Feb;32(2):207-14 [PMID: 23381511]
  14. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017 May 18;11:947-958 [PMID: 28572722]
  15. Front Psychol. 2018 Nov 06;9:2104 [PMID: 30459683]
  16. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012 May 01;53(6):3082-3 [PMID: 22618757]
  17. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Apr 30;21(4):e12463 [PMID: 31038461]
  18. Health Serv Res. 2004 Aug;39(4 Pt 1):1005-26 [PMID: 15230939]
  19. Health Expect. 2017 Dec;20(6):1375-1384 [PMID: 28675539]
  20. Patient Educ Couns. 2017 Oct;100(10):1918-1927 [PMID: 28583722]
  21. Support Care Cancer. 2018 Apr;26(4):1221-1231 [PMID: 29098402]
  22. Health Expect. 2016 Apr;19(2):356-66 [PMID: 25773785]
  23. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018 Sep 25;12:1907-1916 [PMID: 30288031]
  24. BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71 [PMID: 33782057]
  25. Rheumatol Ther. 2017 Jun;4(1):85-96 [PMID: 28361468]
  26. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2000 Jan;39(1):28-33 [PMID: 10662870]
  27. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Oct 18;16(1):582 [PMID: 27756341]
  28. J Gen Intern Med. 2018 Dec;33(12):2106-2112 [PMID: 30291604]
  29. Qual Life Res. 2017 Apr;26(4):1071-1080 [PMID: 27645458]
  30. Health Serv Res. 2017 Aug;52(4):1297-1309 [PMID: 27546032]
  31. BMJ. 2000 Jan 1;320(7226):50-2 [PMID: 10617534]
  32. Musculoskeletal Care. 2022 Mar;20(1):74-85 [PMID: 33826238]
  33. BMC Nurs. 2016 May 04;15:28 [PMID: 27147905]
  34. BMC Fam Pract. 2018 Jan 5;19(1):4 [PMID: 29304742]
  35. Afr Health Sci. 2019 Mar;19(1):1811-1820 [PMID: 31149012]
  36. J Ambul Care Manage. 2007 Jan-Mar;30(1):2-8 [PMID: 17170632]
  37. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021 Feb;73(2):197-202 [PMID: 32892510]
  38. BMJ Open. 2013 Mar 01;3(3): [PMID: 23457326]
  39. Health Serv Res. 2005 Dec;40(6 Pt 1):1918-30 [PMID: 16336556]
  40. JAMA. 2015 Apr 28;313(16):1657-65 [PMID: 25919529]
  41. Am J Manag Care. 2009 Jun;15(6):353-60 [PMID: 19514801]
  42. Glob J Health Sci. 2015 Jul 13;8(3):156-67 [PMID: 26493424]
  43. Biomed Res Int. 2021 Mar 25;2021:6614566 [PMID: 33834068]
  44. Nurs Open. 2019 Oct 08;7(1):326-333 [PMID: 31871717]
  45. Bull World Health Organ. 2007 Nov;85(11):867-72 [PMID: 18038077]
  46. J Affect Disord. 2014 Dec;169:1-6 [PMID: 25128858]
  47. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Dec 29;17(1):853 [PMID: 29284485]
  48. Rheumatol Adv Pract. 2021 Nov 05;5(Suppl 2):ii35-ii44 [PMID: 34755027]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0activationPAMpatientpatientsreviewRAstudyscoresstudiesrheumatologypublishedsystematicPatientsconsideredliteraturerheumatoidarthritiscross-sectionalstandardclinicsSRCslevelsdisease88%oldermeasureshigherIntroduction/Objective:measurereliabletoolmeasuringaimedsystematicallyscientificregardinguse-13comparefollowingtwodifferentpracticessingleinstitutionpreviouslyMethods:consistedarticlesreportingPAM-13followedevaluatingspecializedcorrelationvariablesdemographicscharacteristicstreatmentassessedResults:Nineteen20122022metinclusioncriteriainconsistentresultsqualityranging2976total197confirmeddiagnosesinterviewedresponseratefemalen=17340yearsn=15076%averagescore649deviation157participantslevel34n=71[36%]n=72[37%]respectivelyattendingalsoborderlinehightendedactivetakingcorticosteroidsConclusion:AdequateobservedcenterreportedvariableaccordingLongitudinalinterventionalimprovelowPatientActivationMeasureRheumatoidArthritis:SystematicReviewCross-SectionalInterview-BasedSurveyengagement

Similar Articles

Cited By