How adults with cardiac conditions in Singapore understand the Patient Activation Measure (PAM-13) items: a cognitive interviewing study

Abstract

Purpose: Validation studies of the PAM-13 have found differences in scale performance, suggesting that health beliefs embedded in different cultures and/or self-management needs of different client groups influence how people respond to the items. The purpose of this study was to examine how adults with cardiac conditions in Singapore interpreted and responded to the PAM-13, to investigate possible reasons for differences in responses and to propose solutions to overcome them.

Methods: We conducted retrospective cognitive interviews with 13 participants in an out-patient heart center. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed based on the framework approach to qualitative analysis. The four stages from Tourangeau’s cognitive model were used as a framework to index the data from each item.

Results: There was variation in comprehension of questions leading to variation in responses. Comprehension issues were due to terms perceived by participants to be vague and the use of English terms uncommon in Singapore. Cultural influences impacted decision processes and problems with response processes of the self-rating Likert scale surfaced.

Conclusions: This study reinforces the need to culturally adapt the tool, even when language translation is not necessary. Providing Likert scales with a larger number of may widen the relevance of PAM-13 in Singapore.

Implications for rehabilitation

• Need to culturally adapt assessment tool, even when language translation is not necessary.

• Consider using Likert scales with a larger number of categories when using in Asian countries such as Singapore.

• Caution must be taken when using PAM-13 levels to decide interventions for each individual.

Keywords:

• Patient Activation Measure
• cardiac
• Singapore
• cognitive interviewing
• cultural relevance
• face validity

Acknowledgements

The authors will like to express sincere thanks to Gracie, Beryl, Jess and Batrishiya for their assistance in the transcription of interviews.

Disclosure statement

Bi Xia Ngooi received a research grant (SAOT/RG01/2015) from the Singapore Association of Occupational Therapists. All other authors report no declarations of interest.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Singapore Association of Occupational Therapists.