Testing the performance of the ENRICHD social support instrument in cardiac patients
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Previous investigations suggest an important role of social support in the outcomes of patients treated for ischemic heart disease. The ENRICHD Social Support Instrument (ESSI) is a 7-item self-report survey that assesses social support. Validity and reliability of the ESSI, however, has not been formally tested in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: The ESSI, along with the Short Form-36 (SF-36), was sequentially administered to a cohort of 271 patients undergoing PCI. The test-retest reliability was examined with an intra-class correlation coefficient by comparing scores among 174 patients who completed both instruments 5 and 6 months after their procedure. Internal reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha at the time of patients' baseline procedure. The concurrent validity of the ESSI was assessed by comparing scores between depressed (MHI-5 score < 44) vs. non-depressed patients. The correlation between the ESSI and the SF-36 Social Functioning sub-scale, an accepted measure of social functioning, was also examined. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability showed no significant differences in mean scores among ESSI questionnaires administered 1 month apart (27.8+/-1.4 vs 27.8+/-1.5, p = 0.98). The intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.94 and Cronbach's alpha was 0.88. Mean ESSI scores were significantly lower among depressed vs. non-depressed patients (24.6+/-1.7 vs 27+/-1.4, p < 0.018) and a positive albeit modest correlation with social functioning was seen (r = 0.19, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The ESSI appears to be a valid and reliable measure of social support in patients undergoing treatment for coronary artery disease. It may prove to be a valuable method of controlling for patient variability in outcomes studies where the outcomes are related to patients' social support.
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
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.
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?
The ENRICHD Social Support Instrument has acceptable validity.
“The survey consists of seven items and the total score ranges from 8 to 34 and has acceptable validity. 37”
From Internet-based treatment for provoked vulvodynia: Factors associated with treatment outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [37]
ESSI has high reliability and acceptable validity.
“The instrument has high reliability and acceptable validity (Vaglio Jr et al., 2004).”
From Internet-based treatment for vulvodynia (EMBLA) – Study protocol for a randomised controlled study (2021) · cites this paper as Vaglio Jr et al., 2004
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 25 · Cited by 322
- Authors
- Vaglio, J., Conard, M., Poston, W. S., O'Keefe, J., Haddock, C. K., House, J., & Spertus, J. A.
- Affiliations
- Saint Luke's Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Vaglio, Joseph
- Venue
- Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
- Published
- 2004-05-13
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 24-24
- ISSN
- 1477-7525 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC434528
- OpenAlex
- W2117461307
- Cited by
- 322
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 10.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Health and Quality of Life Outcomes (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- MOspace Institutional Repository (University of Missouri) (acceptedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01 HS011282, R-01 HS11282-01)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Health and Mental Health
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Keywords
- social support, percutaneous coronary intervention, ischemic heart disease, coronary artery disease, test-retest reliability, internal consistency, concurrent validity, depression, social functioning, SF-36, psychometric validation
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Missouri, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Support, Cohort Studies, Atherectomy, Catheter Ablation, Myocardial Ischemia, Sickness Impact Profile
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