Cited by 54Chronic Disease Management StrategiesHealth Education and ValidationDiabetes Management and Education

What we know about the purpose, theoretical foundation, scope and dimensionality of existing self-management measurement tools: A scoping review

Packer, Tanya L., Fracini, America, Audulv, Åsa, Alizadeh, Neda, van Gaal, Betsie G.I., Warner, Grace, Kephart, George·2018·Patient Education and Counseling

Abstract

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pec.2017.10.014

Cites

94 of 94 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 97 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Packer, T. L., Fracini, A., Audulv, Å., Alizadeh, N., van Gaal, B. G. I., Warner, G., & Kephart, G.
Affiliations
  • HAN University of Applied Sciences (NL)
  • Dalhousie University (CA)
  • Mid Sweden University (SE)
Corresponding author
Packer, Tanya L.
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-04
Volume
101
Issue
4
Pages
579-595
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2766372559
Cited by
54
References
97
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2
FWCI
0.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Dalhousie University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
self-management, chronic disease, patient-reported outcomes, patient perspectives
MeSH terms
Self-Management, Chronic Disease, Health Status Indicators, Humans, Self-Assessment, Self Care, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review