The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Development and Validation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC)
Abstract
RATIONALE: There is a need for a brief, validated patient self-report instrument to assess the extent to which patients with chronic illness receive care that aligns with the Chronic Care Model-measuring care that is patient-centered, proactive, planned and includes collaborative goal setting; problem-solving and follow-up support. SAMPLE: A total of 283 adults reporting one or more chronic illness from a large integrated health care delivery system were studied. METHODS: Participants completed the 20-item Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) as well as measures of demographic factors, a patient activation scale, and subscales from a primary care assessment instrument so that we could evaluate measurement performance, construct, and concurrent validity of the PACIC. RESULTS: The PACIC consists of 5 scales and an overall summary score, each having good internal consistency for brief scales. As predicted, the PACIC was only slightly correlated with age and gender, and unrelated to education. Contrary to prediction, it was only slightly correlated (r = 0.13) with number of chronic conditions. The PACIC demonstrated moderate test-retest reliability (r = 0.58 during the course of 3 months) and was correlated moderately, as predicted (r = 0.32-0.60, median = 0.50, P < 0.001) to measures of primary care and patient activation. DISCUSSION: The PACIC appears to be a practical instrument that is reliable and has face, construct, and concurrent validity. The resulting questionnaire is in the public domain, and recommendations for its use in research and quality improvement are outlined.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151312 · Cited by 109,314
Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800104 · Cited by 109,190
The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States
McGlynn, E. A., Asch, S. M., Adams, J., Keesey, J., Hicks, J., DeCristofaro, A., & Kerr, E. A. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa022615 · Cited by 5,079
Self-management education: History, definition, outcomes, and mechanisms
Lorig, K. R., & Holman, H. R. (2003) · Annals of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1207/s15324796abm2601_01 · Cited by 4,094
Improving Primary Care for Patients With Chronic Illness
Bodenheimer, T. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.288.14.1775 · Cited by 2,961 · cited 1×
“(Med Care 2005;43: 436–444) The increasingly well-documented gap between clinical research findings and practice has spurred a number of efforts to improve the quality of chronic illness care.(4,5) It also is apparent that this problem cannot be solved by simply trying to do more; instead, fundamental changes are need…”
BackgroundOrganizing Care for Patients with Chronic Illness
Wagner, E. H., Austin, B. T., & Korff, M. V. (1996) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3350391 · Cited by 2,877
Self-citationHibbard, J. H., Stockard, J., Mahoney, E. R., & Tusler, M. (2004) · Health Services Research · doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00269.x · Cited by 2,748
Collaborative Management of Chronic Illness
Von Korff, M., Gruman, J., Schaefer, J., Curry, S. J., & Wagner, E. H. (1997) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-127-12-199712150-00008 · Cited by 1,269
Self-citationGlasgow, R. E., Funnell, M. M., Bonomi, A. E., Davis, C., Beckham, V., & Wagner, E. H. (2002) · Annals of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1207/s15324796abm2402_04 · Cited by 376
Self-citationPhysician advice and support for physical activity
Glasgow, R. E., Eakin, E. G., Fisher, E. B., Bacak, S. J., & Brownson, R. C. (2001) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0749-3797(01)00350-6 · Cited by 253
Self-citation
Cited by
Hibbard, J. H., & Greene, J. (2013) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1061 · Cited by 1,787
How Can We Increase Translation of Research into Practice? Types of Evidence Needed
Glasgow, R. E., & Emmons, K. M. (2007) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.28.021406.144145 · Cited by 1,050
Self-citationReid, R. J., Coleman, K., Johnson, E. A., Fishman, P. A., Hsu, C., Soman, M. P., Trescott, C. E., Erikson, M., & Larson, E. B. (2010) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0158 · Cited by 567
Self-citationKing, D. K., Glasgow, R. E., Toobert, D. J., Strycker, L. A., Estabrooks, P. A., Osuna, D., & Faber, A. J. (2010) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc09-1746 · Cited by 369
Self-citationCoventry, P., Lovell, K., Dickens, C., Bower, P., Chew-Graham, C., McElvenny, D., Hann, M., Cherrington, A., Garrett, C., Gibbons, C. J., et al. (2015) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.h638 · Cited by 325
Metadata
- Authors
- Glasgow, R. E., Wagner, E. H., Schaefer, J., Mahoney, L. D., Reid, R. J., & Greene, S. M.
- Venue
- Medical Care
- Published
- 2005-05
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 436-444
- ISSN
- 0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2066005581
- Cited by
- 861
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 8.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Development and Validation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.mlr.0000160375.47920.8c
- The paper
- Glasgow, R. E., Wagner, E. H., Schaefer, J., Mahoney, L. D., Reid, R. J., & Greene, S. M. (2005). Development and Validation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC). Medical Care. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000160375.47920.8c
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
