Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
The College of Family Physicians of Canada
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums
  • My alerts
The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow cfp Template on Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
Research ArticleResearch

Physician Enabling Skills Questionnaire

Validation d’un outil récemment développé en contexte de soins primaires

Catherine Hudon, Mireille Lambert and José Almirall
Canadian Family Physician November 2015; 61 (11) e517-e523;
Catherine Hudon
Professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine at the University of Sherbrooke in Saguenay, Que.
MD PhD CCFP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: catherine.hudon@usherbrooke.ca
Mireille Lambert
Research assistant at the Centre de santé et de services sociaux de Chicoutimi in Saguenay.
MA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
José Almirall
Adjunct Professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine at the University of Sherbrooke and is a research assistant at the Centre de santé et de services sociaux de Chicoutimi.
MD PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • CFPlus
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the reliability and validity of the newly developed Physician Enabling Skills Questionnaire (PESQ) by assessing its internal consistency, test-retest reliability, concurrent validity with patient-centred care, and predictive validity with patient activation and patient enablement.

Design Validation study.

Setting Saguenay, Que.

Participants One hundred patients with at least 1 chronic disease who presented in a waiting room of a regional health centre family medicine unit.

Main outcome measures Family physicians’ enabling skills, measured with the PESQ at 2 points in time (ie, while in the waiting room at the family medicine unit and 2 weeks later through a mail survey); patient-centred care, assessed with the Patient Perception of Patient-Centredness instrument; patient activation, assessed with the Patient Activation Measure; and patient enablement, assessed with the Patient Enablement Instrument.

Results The internal consistency of the 6 subscales of the PESQ was adequate (Cronbach α = .69 to .92). The test-retest reliability was very good (r = 0.90; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.93). Concurrent validity with the Patient Perception of Patient-Centredness instrument was good (r = −0.67; 95% CI −0.78 to −0.53; P < .001). The PESQ accounts for 11% of the total variance with the Patient Activation Measure (r2 = 0.11; P = .002) and 19% of the variance with the Patient Enablement Instrument (r2 = 0.19; P < .001).

Conclusion The newly developed PESQ presents good psychometric properties, allowing for its use in practice and research.

To achieve optimal outcomes in the management of chronic diseases, the chronic care model promotes productive interactions between proactive professionals and activated patients.1,2 The family physician, frequently in interaction with people affected by chronic diseases,3,4 is in a privileged position to enable people5 to increase their individual empowerment,6–8 which translates into a growing awareness of one’s strengths, improved self-esteem, decreased anxiety or sadness, improved decision making, development of new skills, and movement toward taking action.9,10

Soliciting and evaluating patient perceptions about how their family physicians help them become more empowered is an essential step toward promoting enabling skills among these health professionals. Patients value the close, trust-based relationship they have with their family physicians.11 Consultation style, continuity of care, and a tailored or individualized approach might have important effects on patients’ self-confidence and on their ability to cope with the strains of illness.12,13 Patients rely on their family physicians to clarify information and treatment options provided by the hospital.11 They also express a need to see their struggle acknowledged and their illness experience legitimized.14,15

In a qualitative study to identify family physicians’ enabling skills from the perspectives of patients with chronic diseases, participants expressed that they needed their family physicians to do the following:

  • develop a partnership with them by building a relationship based on trust and by finding common ground;

  • promote their interests in the health care system by fostering continuity, accessibility, and safety;

  • start from their personal situation by knowing about their feelings, expectations, and context;

  • legitimize their illness experience by recognizing their suffering;

  • acknowledge their strengths and promote their expertise by encouraging self-care and fostering self-confidence; and

  • help maintain hope by supporting them.16

We retained these 6 themes as the main dimensions of family physicians’ enabling skills.

Although many questionnaires have already assessed some aspects of these dimensions by measuring concepts such as patient-centred care, relational empathy, shared decision making, quality of care,17,18 or outcome measures of enablement (Patient Enablement Instrument [PEI] developed by Howie et al),19,20 none has measured all 6 dimensions of family physicians’ enabling skills. We developed the self-administered Physician Enabling Skills Questionnaire (PESQ) to measure family physicians’ enabling skills from the perspectives of patients with chronic diseases. This is the first study examining the psychometric properties of this new instrument by assessing its internal consistency, test-retest reliability, concurrent validity with patient-centred care, and predictive validity with patient activation and patient enablement.

METHODS

Instrument development

First version

We developed a pool of items based on a thematic analysis of the literature,21 interviews with 30 patients with chronic diseases,16 and existing instruments that measured enabling skills in hospital settings18 and patient-centred care, or that contained subscales or items evaluating patient-centred care.17 The dimensions most important to patients included a greater number of items than the less important dimensions did.

Second version

The content validity of our pool of items (66 items) was established by 12 Canadian experts in family medicine through a 3-round electronic Delphi process.22 The experts evaluated wording, coherence, and relevance of the items using a 9-point Likert scale (1 = inappropriate, 9 = very appropriate). In the end, 38 items were kept as they were submitted, 22 were modified in light of expert comments, 6 were removed, and 1 was added, for a total of 61 items in the second version.

Third version

The face validity of the second version of the questionnaire was then examined by pretesting the instrument with patients affected by chronic diseases. Eight patients participated in cognitive interviews using the think-out-loud technique.23 They were asked to read and complete the questionnaire out loud and add anything that went through their mind at the moment. Of the 61 items submitted to the pretest, 38 remained unchanged, 18 were modified following patients’ suggestions and comments, and 5 were removed because they were confusing or redundant, which left a total of 56 items in this third version. At this point, the PESQ’s rating scale and the visual layout were also modified to facilitate completion of the questionnaire by participants.

Fourth and final version

During the validation study of the French version of the PESQ, which is described in the validation study section of this article, 22 items were removed: 11 reverse-score items were too confusing (eg, I feel that my family doctor minimizes my problems), 3 seemed too difficult to understand, and 8 were redundant. There was now a total of 34 items in this fourth and final version.

The PESQ takes approximately 15 minutes to complete and assesses 6 dimensions of physicians’ enabling skills:

  • developing an ongoing partnership (items 1, 8, 11, 12, 16, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, and 31);

  • providing advocacy for the patient in the health care system (items 18, 23, 24, and 32);

  • starting from the patient’s personal situation (items 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 13, 14, and 33);

  • legitimizing the illness experience (items 7 and 17);

  • acknowledging patients’ expertise regarding their own lives (items 6, 21, 22, 25, and 30); and

  • offering realistic hope (items 9, 15, 26, and 34).

The instrument uses 2, 5-point Likert scales: the first scale ranges from 1 being very rarely or never to 5 being very often or always; the second scale ranges from 1 being strongly disagree to 5 being strongly agree. The total score is the sum of all questions. The possible score of the scale ranges from 34 to 170.

English-language version of the PESQ

The 34-item English-language version of the PESQ was obtained through a rigorous translation–back-translation method inspired by da Mota Falcão et al24 and the World Health Organization.25 The English and French versions of the PESQ are available at CFPlus.*

Validation study

We aimed to recruit a sample of 100 participants in the first validation study of the instrument.23 The patients were recruited by a research assistant in the waiting room of the family medicine unit (FMU) of a regional health centre (Centre de santé et de services sociaux de Chicoutimi) in Saguenay, Que. Each adult patient arriving for a consultation received a document containing information about the project (title and aim of the study, name of the researcher, criteria for inclusion, etc) from a clinic staff member and was informed that he or she would be approached by a research assistant in the waiting room.

Participants had to have the following characteristics: be a regular patient of a family physician (other than the corresponding author [C.H.]) for more than 1 year; aged between 25 and 75; have the ability to read and write in French; and be affected by at least 1 of the chronic diseases most frequently seen in primary care (ie, osteoarthritis, arthritis, or other substantial musculoskeletal condition; hypertension; hyperlipidemia; diabetes; heart disease; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma; and depression or anxiety).26,27 Pregnant women or patients with an unstable acute condition, an uncontrolled psychiatric disease, or a cognitive disorder, or those unable to provide informed consent were not included in the study.

After providing written consent, eligible patients were asked to complete the questionnaire a first time while they were in the waiting room of the FMU (this first point in time will be referred to as T1). The questionnaire included the PESQ and the short form of the Patient Perception of Patient-Centredness (PPPC) instrument,28 the Patient Activation Measure (PAM),29 and the PEI.19,20,30 The first 3 instruments were completed before consultation, while the PEI was completed immediately after.

The PPPC includes 9 questions and measures patients’ perceptions of patient-centred care. Scores for each item range from 1 to 4. The total score is the mean score of the 9 items. Patient-centred care and the enabling skills of a physician are 2 related concepts describing interaction with a family physician. A moderate correlation was therefore expected between these 2 concepts (concurrent validity). The PAM is composed of 13 questions and measures degree of patient activation, that is, their knowledge, skills, and confidence level in managing their chronic condition. Scores range from 0 to 100. The PEI comprises 6 questions and evaluates enablement outcome after a medical visit. Scores range from 0 to 12. Our hypothesis was that the PESQ could account for a percentage of the variance for each of these 2 outcomes (PAM and PEI). Filling out the questionnaire took no more than 30 minutes. Participants completed the PESQ a second time 2 weeks later (this second point in time will be referred to as T2) through a mail survey. A 2-week interval was judged appropriate to minimize recall and maturation biases.

We optimized response by using a process based on Dillman’s tailored design method.23 Two weeks after the first mailing, we sent a postcard to all participants to thank them for their participation and to remind those who had yet to respond to complete the T2 questionnaire. One month after the postcard mailing, we sent the T2 questionnaire once again to those who had not returned it. One week after this, we contacted nonrespondents by telephone to remind them once again to return the completed T2 questionnaire. If the participant asked for another T2 questionnaire, we sent another copy by mail. As a last resort, we offered to help participants complete the survey over the telephone.

This study was approved by the ethics review board of the Centre de santé et de services sociaux de Chicoutimi in Quebec.

Analysis

The sample is described using means and SDs for continuous variables such as age and patient-centred care, patient activation, and patient enablement, and proportions for categorical variables (sex, marital status, education, family income).

We calculated the internal consistency for each subscale of the PESQ using the Cronbach α and the test-retest reliability by determining the intraclass correlation coefficient between the 2 administrations of the instrument using the 1-way random model. After checking for normality of the distributions, the Pearson correlation was used to measure the concurrent validity of the PESQ with the PPPC. A linear regression was calculated to estimate the predictive validity of the PESQ for patient activation and patient enablement. We used SPSS, version 16.0, for all analyses.

RESULTS

Between January 9, 2012, and February 15, 2012, the research assistant approached a total of 206 admissible patients in the waiting room of the FMU. Of these, 100 (49%) agreed to participate in the study and completed the questionnaire in the waiting room (T1). Only 12 (12%) of these participants did not return the completed questionnaire at T2.

Table 1 summarizes participant characteristics: mean (SD) age was 59.9 (9.4) years; most participants were female (73%); half of participants had some college or postsecondary school education; almost half had an annual income of $40 000 or more; and 67% were married or lived with a partner.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Participant characteristics: Mean (SD) age was 59.9 (9.4) years; N = 100.

Table 2 shows mean scores for the PPPC, the PAM, and the PEI measured at T1. The mean (SD) score for the PESQ was 138.1 (18.7) (95% CI 134.2 to 142.0) at T1 and 135.8 (18.0) (95% CI 131.8 to 139.8) at T2. The PESQ showed adequate internal consistency; Cronbach α within each dimension ranged from .69 to .92 (Table 3). The intraclass correlation coefficient for the PESQ measures at T1 and T2 was 0.90 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.93). Concurrent validity of the PESQ with the PPPC was good (Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Data on each instrument completed by participants immediately after consultation with the physician

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Internal consistency of the PESQ dimensions

The PESQ accounts for 11% of the total variance with the PAM (r2 = 0.11; P = .002) and 19% of the variance with the PEI (r2 = 0.19; P < .001) (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

The PESQ showed adequate internal consistency for each dimension of the questionnaire. Its test-retest reliability was very good. Its concurrent validity with the PPPC was good, as was its predictive validity with both the PAM and the PEI.

To our knowledge, the PESQ is the first comprehensive instrument designed to evaluate all dimensions of family physicians’ enabling skills. In a longitudinal evaluation, the PESQ allows for the consideration of the relational aspects that develop during a given period of time and that are very important to patients.16 In research, the PESQ could be used to evaluate physicians’ enabling skills for descriptive purposes, to establish the relationship with outcomes of interest, or to evaluate interventions to promote enabling skills among providers. In practice, the PESQ could be used in quality audits or to gather feedback from patients that could be useful for their physicians. Considering the rigorous and iterative conceptual process used in finding and refining the questions, the PESQ also provides important clues to inform all family physicians about useful skills to enable patients with chronic diseases and thereby increase patient empowerment.

Research has stressed the importance of a partnership between the patient and the family physician, a trust-based relationship being an important part of this alliance.14,31–33 Indeed, a positive relationship with the family physician could enable patient empowerment.16,32 Considering the importance of this relationship, the PESQ is an important tool for the evaluation of physicians’ relational skills and their capacity to find common ground (11 items out of 34). Many studies have also documented the importance of knowing and starting from the patient’s personal situation and adapting medical approaches to their expectations, desires, concerns, and lifestyles.12,34–36 Having a good understanding of a patient’s situation allows a physician to maximize the effects of his or her intervention, helping the patient develop empowerment in making choices and taking action.16 The PESQ also gives importance to this dimension (8 items out of 34).

Other questionnaires

Although many questionnaires have already assessed certain aspects of physicians’ enabling skills from the perspectives of people with chronic diseases, none has measured all dimensions. For example, the dimension to provide advocacy for the patient in the health care system is rarely evaluated by questionnaires measuring patient-physician communication. This dimension is well evaluated by the Primary Care Assessment Survey,37 the General Practice Assessment Survey,38 and the Adult Primary Care Assessment Tool39; however, these instruments aim to measure quality of care and therefore they contain some items that are not related to enabling skills.

The dimensions of offering realistic hope and acknowledging patient expertise on their own lives are not given sufficient attention by existing measures. We are not aware of any instrument measuring the dimension of legitimizing the illness experience.17 The various items included in the PESQ are intended to assess all these dimensions.

Limitations

Our study has limitations. One of them is that we used a relatively small sample of patients. However, the statistical power of our results is adequate considering the range of the CIs obtained in our results. Also, there were few persons in situations of poverty in our sample; for this reason, the external validity of our results should also be assessed in this segment of the population. Younger participants might perceive physicians’ enabling skills differently than older patients do. Even if this potential difference would imply different total scores between the 2 groups, we do not think this would have an effect on the psychometric properties of the questionnaire.

The factorial structure of the questionnaire remains to be confirmed with a larger sample, as does sensitivity to change over time. Potential associations between family physicians’ enabling skills measured with the PESQ and clinical outcomes such as use of health services, patient empowerment, and quality of life could be evaluated in further studies. Considering the rigorous translation–back-translation method used, we are confident that the psychometric properties of the English version are similar to the French version, but these were not evaluated in this study. We focused on the relationship between the family physician and his or her patient. However, as the care of patients with chronic diseases is often provided by a care team involving professionals from various disciplines (nursing, psychology, pharmacy, etc), the PESQ can be adapted to assess the enabling skills of other health professionals. A shorter version could be developed.

Conclusion

This article presents the first validation of the newly developed PESQ, a questionnaire measuring family physicians’ enabling skills. This evaluation of the psychometric properties of the PESQ showed adequate internal consistency of the scales. Its test-retest reliability was very good, as was its concurrent validity with the PPPC; its predictive validity was good with both the PEI and the PAM. The PESQ could be used, in practice or research, to gather feedback from patients or to evaluate physicians’ enabling skills either for descriptive purposes or to evaluate interventions to promote enabling skills by providers. The PESQ also provides important clues to inform all family physicians about useful skills to enable patients with chronic diseases and thereby increase patient empowerment.

Acknowledgments

We thank Ms Susie Bernier for her editorial assistance; Dr Janie Houle (from the University of Montreal) and her team for providing the French version of the Patient Activation Measure; Dr Denise St-Cyr Tribble, Dr Gina Bravo (both from the University of Sherbrooke), and Dr William Hogg (from the University of Ottawa) for their involvement in the preliminary stages of the development of the Physician Enabling Skills Questionnaire. This research received financial support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Applied Research Chair in Health Services and Policy Research on Chronic Diseases in Primary Care (Canadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Health Services and Policy Research, Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, and Centre de santé et de services sociaux de Chicoutimi).

Notes

EDITOR’S KEY POINTS

  • The Physician Enabling Skills Questionnaire (PESQ) is a tool to measure the enabling skills of family physicians, who are in a position to empower their patients, from the perspectives of patients with chronic diseases.

  • The PESQ assesses several dimensions of family physicians’ enabling skills that are important to patients (eg, providing advocacy for the patient in the health care system, legitimizing the illness experience, offering realistic hope). The PESQ showed adequate internal consistency for each dimension of the questionnaire.

  • The PESQ could be used to evaluate physicians’ enabling skills either for descriptive purposes or to evaluate interventions to promote enabling skills among providers. It also informs family physicians about useful skills to enable patients with chronic diseases and thereby increase their empowerment.

POINTS DE REPÈRE DU RÉDACTEUR

  • Le Physician Enabling Skills Questionnaire (PESQ) est un outil qui permet d’évaluer la capacité des médecins de famille d’augmenter l’autonomie de leurs patients, en particulier ceux qui souffrent de maladies chroniques.

  • Le PESQ évalue plusieurs aspects de la capacité des médecins de famille de renforcer l’autonomie de leurs patients; ces aspects sont importants pour les patients (p. ex. plaider en faveur du patient dans le système de santé, légitimer l’expérience de la maladie, offrir un espoir réaliste). Le PESQ a montré qu’il possède une consistance interne adéquate pour chacun des aspects du questionnaire.

  • Le PESQ pourrait servir à préciser la capacité des médecins pour rendre leurs patients plus autonomes, soit à des fins descriptives ou pour évaluer les interventions susceptibles de favoriser cette capacité chez les soignants. Il renseigne aussi les médecins sur les meilleures façons d’augmenter l’autonomie des malades chroniques, les amenant ainsi à mieux gérer leur maladie.

Footnotes

  • This article has been peer reviewed.

  • Cet article a fait l’objet d’une révision par des pairs.

  • ↵* The English and French versions of the Physician Enabling Skills Questionnaire are available at www.cfp.ca. Go to the full text of the article online and click on CFPlus in the menu at the top right-hand side of the page.

  • Contributors

    All authors contributed to the concept and design of the study; data gathering, analysis, and interpretation; and preparing the manuscript for submission.

  • Competing interests

    None declared

  • Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Bodenheimer T,
    2. Wagner EH,
    3. Grumbach K
    . Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness. JAMA 2002;288(14):1775-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Bodenheimer T,
    2. Wagner EH,
    3. Grumbach K
    . Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness: the chronic care model, part 2. JAMA 2002;288(15):1909-14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Broemeling AM,
    2. Watson DE,
    3. Prebtani F
    . Population patterns of chronic health conditions, co-morbidity and healthcare use in Canada: implications for policy and practices. Healthc Q 2008;11(3):70-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Starfield B,
    2. Lemke KW,
    3. Bernhardt T,
    4. Foldes SS,
    5. Forrest CB,
    6. Weiner JP
    . Comorbidity: implications for the importance of primary care in ‘case’ management. Ann Fam Med 2003;1(1):8-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Virtanen H,
    2. Leino-Kilpi H,
    3. Salanterä S
    . Empowering discourse in patient education. Patient Educ Couns 2007;66(2):140-6. Epub 2007 Mar 8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Hudon C,
    2. St-Cyr Tribble D,
    3. Bravo G,
    4. Poitras ME
    . Enablement in health care context: a concept analysis. J Eval Clin Pract 2011;17(1):143-9. Epub 2010 Sep 2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.
    1. Rappaport J
    . Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: toward a theory for community psychology. Am J Community Psychol 1987;15(2):121-48.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. World Health Organization [website]
    . The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. First International Conference on Health Promotion, Ottawa, 21 November 1986. Geneva, Switz: World Health Organization; 2015. Available from: www.who.int/healthpromotion/conferences/previous/ottawa/en/. Accessed 2014 May 21.
  9. 9.↵
    1. Wallerstein N
    . What is the evidence on effectiveness of empowerment to improve health? Copenhagen, Den: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2006. Available from: www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/74656/E88086.pdf. Accessed 2014 May 21.
  10. 10.↵
    1. St-Cyr Tribble D,
    2. Gallagher F,
    3. Bell L,
    4. Caron C,
    5. Godbout P,
    6. Leblanc J,
    7. et al
    . Empowerment interventions, knowledge translation and exchange: perspectives of home care professionals, clients and caregivers. BMC Health Serv Res 2008;8:177.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Bulsara C,
    2. Ward AM,
    3. Joske D
    . Patient perceptions of the GP role in cancer management. Aust Fam Physician 2005;34(4):299-300, 302.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Kendall M,
    2. Boyd K,
    3. Campbell C,
    4. Cormie P,
    5. Fife S,
    6. Thomas K,
    7. et al
    . How do people with cancer wish to be cared for in primary care? Serial discussion groups of patients and carers. Fam Pract 2006;23(6):644-50. Epub 2006 Jul 11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Gilmore KA,
    2. Hargie O
    . Quality issues in the treatment of depression in general practice. Int J Health Care Qual Assur Inc Leadersh Health Serv 2000;13(1):34-41.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Raymond MC,
    2. Brown JB
    . Experience of fibromyalgia. Qualitative study. Can Fam Physician 2000;46:1100-6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Abdulhadi N,
    2. Al Shafaee M,
    3. Freudenthal S,
    4. Ostenson CG,
    5. Wahlström R
    . Patient-provider interaction from the perspectives of type 2 diabetes patients in Muscat, Oman: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2007;7:162.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Hudon C,
    2. St-Cyr Tribble D,
    3. Bravo G,
    4. Hogg W,
    5. Lambert M,
    6. Poitras ME
    . Family physician enabling attitudes: a qualitative study of patient perceptions. BMC Fam Pract 2013;14:8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Hudon C,
    2. Fortin M,
    3. Haggerty J,
    4. Lambert M,
    5. Poitras ME
    . Measuring patients’ perceptions of patient-centered care: a systematic review of tools for family medicine. Ann Fam Med 2011;9(2):155-64.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Hudon C,
    2. St-Cyr Tribble D,
    3. Légaré F,
    4. Bravo G,
    5. Fortin M,
    6. Almirall J
    . Assessing enablement in clinical practice: a systematic review of available instruments. J Eval Clin Pract 2010;16(6):1301-8. Epub 2010 Aug 19.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Howie JG,
    2. Heaney DJ,
    3. Maxwell M
    . Measuring quality in general practice. Pilot study of needs, process and outcome measure. Occas Pap R Coll Gen Pract 1997;(75):i-xii, 1-32.
  20. 20.↵
    1. Howie JG,
    2. Heaney DJ,
    3. Maxwell M,
    4. Walker JJ
    . A comparison of a Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) against two established satisfaction scales as an outcome measure of primary care consultations. Fam Pract 1998;15(2):165-71.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Hudon C,
    2. Fortin M,
    3. Haggerty J,
    4. Loignon C,
    5. Lambert M,
    6. Poitras ME
    . Patient-centered care in chronic disease management: a thematic analysis of the literature in family medicine. Patient Educ Couns 2012;88(2):170-6. Epub 2012 Feb 22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Rotondi A,
    2. Gustafson D
    . Theoretical, methodological and practical issues arising out of the Delphi method. In: Adler M, Ziglio E, editors. Gazing into the oracle: the Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health. Bristol, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, Ltd; 1996. p. 34-55.
  23. 23.↵
    1. Dillman DA
    . Mail and Internet surveys: the tailored design method. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley and Sons; 2000.
  24. 24.↵
    1. Da Mota Falcão D,
    2. Ciconelli RM,
    3. Ferraz MB
    . Translation and cultural adaptation of quality of life questionnaires: an evaluation of methodology. J Rheumatol 2003;30(2):379-85.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. World Health Organization [website]
    . Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. Geneva, Switz: World Health Organization; 2015. Available from: www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/. Accessed 2012 Nov 9.
  26. 26.↵
    1. Fortin M,
    2. Bravo G,
    3. Hudon C,
    4. Vanasse A,
    5. Lapointe L
    . Prevalence of multimorbidity among adults seen in family practice. Ann Fam Med 2005;3(3):223-8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Wiréhn AB,
    2. Karlsson HM,
    3. Carstensen JM
    . Estimating disease prevalence using a population-based administrative healthcare database. Scand J Public Health 2007;35(4):424-31.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Stewart M,
    2. Brown JB,
    3. Weston WW,
    4. Freeman TR
    . Patient-centred medicine: transforming the clinical method. 2nd ed. London, UK: Radcliffe Medical Press; 2003.
  29. 29.↵
    1. Hibbard JH,
    2. Mahoney ER,
    3. Stockard J,
    4. Tusler M
    . Development and testing of a short form of the Patient Activation Measure. Health Serv Res 2005;40(6 Pt 1):1918-30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Hudon C,
    2. Fortin M,
    3. Rossignol F,
    4. Bernier S,
    5. Poitras ME
    . The Patient Enablement Instrument-French version in a family practice setting: a reliability study. BMC Fam Pract 2011;12:71.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Pandhi N,
    2. Bowers B,
    3. Chen FP
    . A comfortable relationship: a patient-derived dimension of ongoing care. Fam Med 2007;39(4):266-73.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Cocksedge S,
    2. Greenfield R,
    3. Nugent GK,
    4. Chew-Graham C
    . Holding relationships in primary care: a qualitative exploration of doctors’ and patients’ perceptions. Br J Gen Pract 2011;61(589):e484-91.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Roberge D,
    2. Beaulieu MD,
    3. Haddad S,
    4. Lebeau R,
    5. Pineault R
    . Loyalty to the regular care provider: patients’ and physicians’ views. Fam Pract 2001;18(1):53-9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Little P,
    2. Everitt H,
    3. Williamson I,
    4. Warner G,
    5. Moore M,
    6. Gould C,
    7. et al
    . Preferences of patients for patient centred approach to consultation in primary care: observational study. BMJ 2001;322(7284):468-72.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.
    1. Brown JB,
    2. Stewart M,
    3. McWilliam CL
    . Using the patient-centered method to achieve excellence in care for women with breast cancer. Patient Educ Couns 1999;38(2):121-9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Smith BK,
    2. Frost J,
    3. Albayrak M,
    4. Sudhakar R
    . Facilitating narrative medical discussions of type 1 diabetes with computer visualizations and photography. Patient Educ Couns 2006;64(1–3):313-21. Epub 2006 Jul 21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Safran DG,
    2. Kosinski M,
    3. Tarlov AR,
    4. Rogers WH,
    5. Taira DH,
    6. Lieberman N,
    7. et al
    . The Primary Care Assessment Survey: tests of data quality and measurement performance. Med Care 1998;36(5):728-39.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Ramsay J,
    2. Campbell JL,
    3. Schroter S,
    4. Green J,
    5. Roland M
    . The General Practice Assessment Survey (GPAS): tests of data quality and measurement properties. Fam Pract 2000;17(5):372-9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    1. Shi L,
    2. Starfield B,
    3. Xu J
    . Validating the Adult Primary Care Assessment Tool. J Fam Pract 2001;50(2):161-75.
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Family Physician: 61 (11)
Canadian Family Physician
Vol. 61, Issue 11
1 Nov 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on The College of Family Physicians of Canada.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Physician Enabling Skills Questionnaire
(Your Name) has sent you a message from The College of Family Physicians of Canada
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the The College of Family Physicians of Canada web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Physician Enabling Skills Questionnaire
Catherine Hudon, Mireille Lambert, José Almirall
Canadian Family Physician Nov 2015, 61 (11) e517-e523;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Physician Enabling Skills Questionnaire
Catherine Hudon, Mireille Lambert, José Almirall
Canadian Family Physician Nov 2015, 61 (11) e517-e523;
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Notes
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • CFPlus
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Trends colliding
  • Primary care reform in Alberta
  • Administrative burden in primary care
Show more Research

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Collection française
    • Résumés de recherche

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Collections - English
  • Collections - Française

For Authors

  • Authors and Reviewers
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Permissions
  • Terms of Use

General Information

  • About CFP
  • About the CFPC
  • Advertisers
  • Careers & Locums
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Subscribers

Journal Services

  • Email Alerts
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • RSS Feeds

Copyright © 2025 by The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Powered by HighWire