TY - JOUR
T1 - What we know about the purpose, theoretical foundation, scope and dimensionality of existing self-management measurement tools
T2 - A scoping review
AU - Packer, Tanya L.
AU - Fracini, America
AU - Audulv, Åsa
AU - Alizadeh, Neda
AU - van Gaal, Betsie G.I.
AU - Warner, Grace
AU - Kephart, George
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2018/4
Y1 - 2018/4
N2 - Objectives: To identify self-report, self-management measures for adults with chronic conditions, and describe their purpose, theoretical foundation, dimensionality (multi versus uni), and scope (generic versus condition specific). Methods: A search of four databases (8479 articles) resulted in a scoping review of 28 self-management measures. Results: Although authors identified tools as measures of self-management, wide variation in constructs measured, purpose, and theoretical foundations existed. Subscales on 13 multidimensional tools collectively measure domains of self-management relevant to clients, however no one tool's subscales cover all domains. Conclusions: Viewing self-management as a complex, multidimensional whole, demonstrated that existing measures assess different, related aspects of self-management. Activities and social roles, though important to patients, are rarely measured. Measures with capacity to quantify and distinguish aspects of self-management may promote tailored patient care. Practice implications: In selecting tools for research or assessment, the reason for development, definitions, and theories underpinning the measure should be scrutinized. Our ability to measure self-management must be rigorously mapped to provide comprehensive and system-wide care for clients with chronic conditions. Viewing self-management as a complex whole will help practitioners to understand the patient perspective and their contribution in supporting each individual patient.
AB - Objectives: To identify self-report, self-management measures for adults with chronic conditions, and describe their purpose, theoretical foundation, dimensionality (multi versus uni), and scope (generic versus condition specific). Methods: A search of four databases (8479 articles) resulted in a scoping review of 28 self-management measures. Results: Although authors identified tools as measures of self-management, wide variation in constructs measured, purpose, and theoretical foundations existed. Subscales on 13 multidimensional tools collectively measure domains of self-management relevant to clients, however no one tool's subscales cover all domains. Conclusions: Viewing self-management as a complex, multidimensional whole, demonstrated that existing measures assess different, related aspects of self-management. Activities and social roles, though important to patients, are rarely measured. Measures with capacity to quantify and distinguish aspects of self-management may promote tailored patient care. Practice implications: In selecting tools for research or assessment, the reason for development, definitions, and theories underpinning the measure should be scrutinized. Our ability to measure self-management must be rigorously mapped to provide comprehensive and system-wide care for clients with chronic conditions. Viewing self-management as a complex whole will help practitioners to understand the patient perspective and their contribution in supporting each individual patient.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85035132544&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85035132544&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.pec.2017.10.014
DO - 10.1016/j.pec.2017.10.014
M3 - Review article
C2 - 29239734
AN - SCOPUS:85035132544
SN - 0738-3991
VL - 101
SP - 579
EP - 595
JO - Patient Education and Counseling
JF - Patient Education and Counseling
IS - 4
ER -