The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Perceived Efficacy in Patient‐Physician Interactions (PEPPI): Validation of an Instrument in Older Persons
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a brief instrument – the Perceived Efficacy in Patient‐Physician Interactions Questionnaire (PEPPI) – to measure older patients' self‐efficacy in obtaining medical information and attention to their medical concerns from physicians. DESIGN: Two consecutive validation surveys. SETTING: Eleven senior multipurpose centers in Los Angeles County California. POPULATION: A convenience sample of 163 community‐dwelling older persons (Survey 1: n = 59, mean age = 77.1 years, 76.3% female; Survey 2: n = 104, mean age = 77.4 years, 57.7% female). MEASURES: The 10‐item PEPPI, subscales of the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire, the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Coping Scale, the Mastery Scale, and global self‐reported health and restricted activity days items. RESULTS: The full 10‐item and a 5‐item short form of PEFPI demonstrated Cronbach's alphas of 0.91 and 0.83, respectively. PEPPI demonstrated discriminant and convergent validity as hypothesized, correlating negatively with avoidant coping ( r = ‐.27, P =.001) and positively with active coping (r =.17, P =.03) and with patient satisfaction with physician interpersonal manner (r =.49, P <.0001) and communication (r =.51, P <.0001) (values from the overall sample). Further, in the second survey, PEPPI correlated positively with self‐reported health (r =.42, P <.0001), education (r =.24, P =.01) and self‐mastery (r =.29, P =.01) and negatively with restricted activity days (r = ‐.25, P =.01). PEPPI‐5 demonstrated correlations similar in magnitude, direction, and statistical significance. CONCLUSION: In either the 5‐ or 10‐item version, PEPPI is a valid and reliable measure of older patients' perceived self‐efficacy in interacting with physicians. This instrument may be useful in measuring the impact of empowerment interventions to increase older patients' personal sense of effectiveness in obtaining needed health care.
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
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change
Bandura, A. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191 · Cited by 43,925
Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency
Bandura, A. (1982) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.37.2.122 · Cited by 15,975
Pearlin, L. I., Menaghan, E. G., Lieberman, M. A., & Mullan, J. T. (1981) · Journal of Health and Social Behavior · doi:10.2307/2136676 · Cited by 6,289
The MOS Short-form General Health Survey: Reliability and Validity in a Patient Population
Stewart, A. L., Hays, R. D., & Ware, J. E. (1988) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-198807000-00007 · Cited by 3,339
Age-Ism: Another Form of Bigotry
Butler, R. N. (1969) · The Gerontologist · doi:10.1093/geront/9.4_part_1.243 · Cited by 2,291
The role of coping responses and social resources in attenuating the stress of life events
Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1981) · Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/bf00844267 · Cited by 1,999
Langer, E. J., & Rodin, J. (1976) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.34.2.191 · Cited by 1,549
Expanding Patient Involvement in Care: Effects on Patient Outcomes
GREENFIELD, S., KAPLAN, S., & WARE, J. E. (1985) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-102-4-520 · Cited by 1,413
Egbert, L. D., Battit, G. E., Welch, C. E., & Bartlett, M. K. (1964) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm196404162701606 · Cited by 1,148
Information and Participation Preferences Among Cancer Patients
CASSILETH, B. R., ZUPKIS, R. V., SUTTON-SMITH, K., & MARCH, V. (1980) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-92-6-832 · Cited by 1,144
Cited by
Communication skills training for healthcare professionals working with people who have cancer
Moore, P. M., Rivera Mercado, S., Grez Artigues, M., & Lawrie, T. A. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003751.pub3 · Cited by 452
Patient health literacy and participation in the health‐care process
Ishikawa, H., & Yano, E. (2008) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00497.x · Cited by 326
Epstein, R. M., Duberstein, P. R., Fenton, J. J., Fiscella, K., Hoerger, M., Tancredi, D. J., Xing, G., Gramling, R., Mohile, S., Franks, P., et al. (2016) · JAMA Oncology · doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.4373 · Cited by 316
Communication skills training for healthcare professionals working with people who have cancer
Moore, P. M., Rivera, S., Bravo-Soto, G. A., Olivares, C., & Lawrie, T. A. (2018) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003751.pub4 · Cited by 302
van der Hout, A., van Uden-Kraan, C. F., Holtmaat, K., Jansen, F., Lissenberg-Witte, B. I., Nieuwenhuijzen, G. A. P., Hardillo, J. A., Baatenburg de Jong, R. J., Tiren-Verbeet, N. L., Sommeijer, D. W., et al. (2020) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30675-8 · Cited by 176
Metadata
- Authors
- Maly, R. C., Frank, J. C., Marshall, G. N., DiMatteo, M. R., & Reuben, D. B.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1998-07
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 889-894
- ISSN
- 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-5415
- OpenAlex
- W2065354419
- Cited by
- 329
- References
- 52
- FWCI
- 1.77
- 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: Perceived Efficacy in Patient‐Physician Interactions (PEPPI): Validation of an Instrument in Older Persons. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1998.tb02725.x
- The paper
- Maly, R. C., Frank, J. C., Marshall, G. N., DiMatteo, M. R., & Reuben, D. B. (1998). Perceived Efficacy in Patient‐Physician Interactions (PEPPI): Validation of an Instrument in Older Persons. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1998.tb02725.x
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.