Cited by 94Chronic Disease Management StrategiesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth Education and Validation

Development of a multimorbidity illness perceptions scale (MULTIPleS)

Open access
Gibbons, Chris J., Kenning, Cassandra, Coventry, Peter A., Bee, Penny, Bundy, Christine, Fisher, Louise, Bower, Peter·2013·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Illness perceptions are beliefs about the cause, nature and management of illness, which enable patients to make sense of their conditions. These perceptions can predict adjustment and quality of life in patients with single conditions. However, multimorbidity (i.e. patients with multiple long-term conditions) is increasingly prevalent and a key challenge for future health care delivery. The objective of this research was to develop a valid and reliable measure of illness perceptions for multimorbid patients. METHODS: Candidate items were derived from previous qualitative research with multimorbid patients. Questionnaires were posted to 1500 patients with two or more exemplar long-term conditions (depression, diabetes, osteoarthritis, coronary heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Data were analysed using factor analysis and Rasch analysis. Rasch analysis is a modern psychometric technique for deriving unidimensional and intervally-scaled questionnaires. RESULTS: Questionnaires from 490 eligible patients (32.6% response) were returned. Exploratory factor analysis revealed five potential subscales 'Emotional representations', 'Treatment burden', 'Prioritising conditions', 'Causal links' and 'Activity limitations'. Rasch analysis led to further item reduction and the generation of a summary scale comprising of items from all scales. All scales were unidimensional and free from differential item functioning or local independence of items. All scales were reliable, but for each subscale there were a number of patients who scored at the floor of the scale. CONCLUSIONS: The MULTIPleS measure consists of five individual subscales and a 22-item summary scale that measures the perceived impact of multimorbidity. All scales showed good fit to the Rasch model and preliminary evidence of reliability and validity. A number of patients scored at floor of each subscale, which may reflect variation in the perception of multimorbidity. The MULTIPleS measure will facilitate research into the impact of illness perceptions on adjustment, clinical outcomes, quality of life, and costs in patients with multimorbidity.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0081852

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [31]Tennant A, Pallant J (2006) Unidimensionality matters (a tale of two Smiths?). Rasch Measurement Transactions 20: 1048– 1051.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gibbons, C. J., Kenning, C., Coventry, P. A., Bee, P., Bundy, C., Fisher, L., & Bower, P.
Affiliations
  • Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2013-12-20
Volume
8
Issue
12
Pages
e81852
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2130847010
Cited by
94
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2
FWCI
2.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • NIHR School for Primary Care Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
multimorbidity, illness perception, scale development, Rasch analysis, chronic disease, treatment burden, emotion representation, causal beliefs, activity limitation, floor effect, psychometric validation, quality of life
MeSH terms
Demography, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Humans, Morbidity, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Comorbidity, Logistic Models, Critical Illness, Nomograms

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