PACICPatient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (questionnaire)
References in periodicals archive ?
We used GEE with robust design-based variance estimators (specified exactly as above) to model the association between modified PACIC scores (total and subdomain) and PCMH score (100-point scale).
Compared with the low PCMH-improvement group, the high PCMH-improvement group had lower modified PACIC scores at baseline in every category (Table 2).
9-point higher total modified PACIC score (95 percent CI: 3.
However, their difference in total modified PACIC score only tended toward significance (p = .
We found that at completion of the intervention, higher PCMH rating was significantly associated with better patient experience; specifically, a higher total modified PACIC score and higher scores in four of five subdomains (Table 3).
Our data may support this latter hypothesis, because clinics in the high PCMH-improvement group had unilaterally lower PACIC scores at baseline.
Second, the PACIC was originally validated as a 20-item survey instrument (Glasgow et al.
Finally, the item used to identify patients with chronic illness may have included some patients with more subacute illness, such as a prolonged respiratory illness or ankle fracture; however, the PACIC scale was originally intended to "assess the recipe of patient-centered care" relevant across diverse patients (Glasgow et al.
Factorial Validation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) and PACIC Short Version (PACIC-S) among Cardiovascular Disease Patients in the Netherlands.
In terms of quality of health care, PAM activation score and stage were positively associated with all the subscales of the PACIC and PCAS.
Our study is the first to explore the association between the PAM and two measures of health care quality, the PACIC and PCAS.