What The Evidence Shows About Patient Activation: Better Health Outcomes And Care Experiences; Fewer Data On Costs

Health Affairs (Impact Factor: 4.64). 02/2013; 32(2):207-14. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1061
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Patient engagement is an increasingly important component of strategies to reform health care. In this article we review the available evidence of the contribution that patient activation-the skills and confidence that equip patients to become actively engaged in their health care-makes to health outcomes, costs, and patient experience. There is a growing body of evidence showing that patients who are more activated have better health outcomes and care experiences, but there is limited evidence to date about the impact on costs. Emerging evidence indicates that interventions that tailor support to the individual's level of activation, and that build skills and confidence, are effective in increasing patient activation. Furthermore, patients who start at the lowest activation levels tend to increase the most. We conclude that policies and interventions aimed at strengthening patients' role in managing their health care can contribute to improved outcomes and that patient activation can-and should-be measured as an intermediate outcome of care that is linked to improved outcomes.

Download full-text


Available from: Judith Hibbard, Jun 26, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Patient Activation Measure (PAM) is an increasingly popular instrument used as the basis for interventions to improve patient engagement and as an outcome measure to assess intervention effect. However, when there are missing responses, the PAM uses extrapolation in scoring that may lead to substantial measurement error. In this paper, measurement error is systematically estimated across the full possible range of missing items (one to twelve), using simulation in which populated items were randomly replaced with missing data for each of 1,138 complete surveys obtained in a randomized controlled trial. The PAM score was then calculated using extrapolation, followed by comparisons of overall simulated average mean, minimum and maximum PAM scores to the true PAM score in order to assess the absolute percentage error (APE) for each comparison. With only one missing item, the average APE was 2.5% comparing the true PAM score to the simulated minimum score, and 4.3% compared to the simulated maximum score. APEs increased with additional missing items, such that surveys with 12 missing items had average APEs of 29.7% (minimum) and 44.4% (maximum). Several suggestions and alternative approaches are offered that could be pursued to improve measurement accuracy when responses are missing.
    BioMed Research International 03/2015; · 2.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study investigated the factor structure and psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale (HPRS) in psychiatric outpatient care, and how socio-demographic and clinical variables are related to this measure of trait reactance proneness. We carried out a cross-sectional survey involving seven hundred and ten consecutive psychiatric outpatients that completed the HPRS, health locus of control, self-efficacy and drug attitude scales, in addition to a questionnaire including socio-demographic and clinical variables. A confirmatory factor analysis to test the dimensionality of the HPRS was performed. Results supported that the best-fitting model of reactance processes was a two-factor structure including affective and cognitive dimensions whose understanding and interaction appear essential to develop effective persuasive clinical messages. Further analyses yielded significant results with age, educational level, number of drugs prescribed, health locus of control dimensions and attitudes toward psychiatric treatment but not with sex, self-efficacy or psychiatric diagnoses. Psychological reactance is a longstanding but still promising construct. Our results confirm that a two-factor structure is reasonable for assessing psychological reactance in psychiatric patients and provides an opportunity to understand patients’ health behavior.
    Personality and Individual Differences 11/2014; 70:85–91. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.027 · 1.86 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: This study examines the relationship between patient activation, a measure of individuals' knowledge, skill, and confidence for managing their health, and rates of depression remission and response among patients with depression. Methods: Patients from Fairview Health Services in Minnesota with moderate to severe depression in 2011 and a PHQ-9 score in 2012 were included in the analysis (n=5253). Patient activation in 2011 and other health and demographic features were extracted from the electronic health record. We examined how patient activation predicted depression remission and response rates and changes in depression severity over one year using regression models. We also explored how activation predicted healthy behaviors among depressed patients. Results: Higher baseline patient activation predicted lower depression severity and higher depression remission and response rates a year later. The most activated patients had PHQ-9 scores in 2012 two points lower than the lowest activated patients, and they had twice the odds of remission. Activation also predicted increase in healthy behaviors. Limitations: We were unable to examine the use of mental health services or control for the number of prior depressive episodes and duration of the current depressive episode in the analysis. Conclusions: We found that higher patient activation predicted better depression outcomes. While we are unable to explore the mechanism of this association, we observed that more activated patients are also engaged in more healthy behaviors, suggesting that the mechanism may be behavioral. Support of patient activation may be an effective approach for providers to reduce patients depression severity.
    Journal of Affective Disorders 07/2014; 169C:1-6. DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2014.07.030 · 3.71 Impact Factor