Department of Rheumatology, Wirral Hospital NHS Trust, Wirral, Merseyside and 1Department of Rheumatology, St Helens and Knowsley Hospitals NHS Trust, Merseyside, UK
Correspondence to: S. Hennell. Rheumatology Department, Arrowe Park Hospital, Arrowe Park Road, Upton, Wirral, CH49 5PE UK. E-mail: sheena.hennell{at}whnt.nhs.uk
![]() |
Abstract |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Methods. The PKQ design incorporated 12 multichoice questions. Validation procedures were undertaken. Following PKQ validation 30 patients were recruited from specialist practice having met the inclusion criteria. All patients attended the arthritis information course run by the multidisciplinary team. Demographic data such as age, gender, disease duration and educational level were evaluated for possible significance.
Results. The PKQ demonstrated testretest stability with a Pearson's correlation coefficient of 0.965 and an intraclass single measure coefficient of 0.87. Internal consistency was demonstrated with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.62. The PKQ was sensitive to change with a statistically significant improvement following three 1-h education sessions (MannWhitney U-test P<0.001). No correlation was found between baseline PKQ scores and age or disease duration. However, significant correlation between educational level and pre-knowledge scores (Pearson's correlation r = 0.386, P = 0.035) was demonstrated. Change in PKQ score was not associated with age, disease duration or educational level. Patients with lower initial pre-scores obtained the most improvement post-AIC (2-test P = 0.003).
Conclusions. The PKQ is a reliable, valid and sensitive instrument suitable for measuring the acquisition of RA knowledge in a group of early RA patients following arthritis information courses.
KEY WORDS: Patient knowledge, Questionnaire, Rheumatoid arthritis.
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
There is also growing evidence that many patients experience significant disability in the very early stages of RA [2] owing to the often very variable nature of the disease. At this stage health professionals can play a key role in reducing the effect of the disease through assessment, understanding need and providing meaningful information [3]. However, debate tends to centre on the timing of such interventions.
Current opinion has yet to agree on the optimal time for presenting patients with disease-related information [4]. It could be suggested that early onset of RA is the optimum time to assess the patient's individual educational need. This would enable information provision, support and the answering of questions to begin to empower patients to self-manage. This view is shared by others who state that, from diagnosis onwards, those with RA require the necessary knowledge and understanding to enable them to make informed decisions regarding treatment options and to carry out self-care [5]. This suggests that education programmes should be targeted at those with early RA. In addition, when questioned, those with RA that had been diagnosed for less than 5 yr felt patient education aided their understanding of RA disease compared with those with more long-standing disease [6]. Current evidence also suggests that there is the potential for greater reduction in disability with early educational intervention [7].
It is vitally important therefore that nurses are aware and can demonstrate the effectiveness of education programmes. One way to demonstrate this effectiveness is to measure patient knowledge following participation at an education programme. If post-intervention knowledge scores are higher, this supports the evidence of effective patient education.
Two validated patient knowledge questionnairesthe Hill PKQ [8] and the ACREU (Arthritis Community Research and Evaluation Unit) [9]are currently available to measure RA knowledge. The Hill PKQ appears complicated to follow in terms of structure and the responses require patients to use different numbers of true statements to answer each question. The questions include medical terminology and are quite lengthy. The low initial scores provide evidence that the questionnaire appears difficult to follow as, despite mean disease duration of 9.6 yr and high level of education, scores were low [8]. The ACREU [9] questionnaire is based on a 5-point Likert scale. This style is not suitable for a questionnaire, which is based on factual questions and measuring knowledge [10]. The authors themselves admit this questionnaire is probably not relevant to other teaching programmes and it has not been tested with patients who are newly diagnosed. However, significant increases in knowledge scores (P<0.01) are demonstrated between the education and control groups at 6 weeks [9]. These tools, although valid and demonstrating results, have limitations in practice. Therefore, in order to demonstrate knowledge change pre- and post-education programme, the decision was taken to design a PKQ.
The primary aim of this study was therefore to design and validate a PKQ, for use with early RA patients, and to investigate whether it is sensitive to change following a departmental arthritis information course (AIC). A secondary analysis compares PKQ scores with patient demographics and investigates retention of knowledge.
The arthritis information course (AIC) was designed to provide those patients identified as having early RA with the necessary information/knowledge to self-manage this chronic disease effectively. The key component of this education programme is that the content is based on the needs of those receiving the education and therefore the Multi Disciplinary Team (MDT) using specific topic areas (see Table 1) designed the course. The teaching component covers two sessions attended by 8 to 10 patients following initial baseline assessment, aimed at identifying individual educational need.
|
![]() |
Patients and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
An independent rheumatology panel comprising senior physiotherapist, occupational therapist, a rheumatology nurse practitioner and rheumatology consultant reviewed the questions and confirmed them to be representative of the AIC content, in order to confirm the content validity of the PKQ.
The pilot study was necessary so that a preliminary test of the questionnaire could be conducted. Any problems/benefits associated with the design could then be identified. The first draft was prepared following consultation with the multidisciplinary team. Following this the questionnaire was piloted (for completion of the PKQ) to the 15 patients and other members of the MDT, not included in the development, for comments on the question content and design. Analysis of the completed questionnaires identified some problems. These related to format, some question phrasing, some answer/response phrasing and relevance and suitability of possible answers and are highlighted with changes in Table 3.
|
Following re-pilot this was found to be much more acceptable to the patients who felt that by giving this information they were now personally involved in the study. This scale still enabled the researcher to bracket the educational levels of the sample to determine any possible correlations within the data. The pilot (allowing for changes) provided evidence that the PKQ questions worked as intended and that the use of editing helped to reduce the potential for problems.
Patient selection
Patients were therefore recruited to the main study having met the following inclusion criteria: newly diagnosed with RA for <2 yr, no previous attendance at an RA education programme and maximum age of 75 yr. Patients who were deaf or unable to read were excluded. Written consent was obtained from all patients after perusal of the information sheet. Ethical approval for this study was granted by St Helens and Knowsley Local Research Ethics Committee.
Convenience sampling was used to recruit early RA patients, those newly diagnosed with RA and referred to the AIC. Patients were consecutively recruited to participate in the pilot study and testretest analysis and were grouped as follows: (1) 15 RA patients (25 yr after diagnosis) for the pilot study to comment on question format, with some knowledge but not extensive knowledge, to test PKQ for sensitivity to change and to provide data for power calculation; (2) a further 40 RA patients recruited from weekly monitoring sessions to answer PKQ for testretest analysis (in treatment room) 1 week apart; and (3) 30 newly diagnosed RA patients to participate in study (29 patients was the minimum number resulting from the power calculation required to show the effect of the educational programme on patient knowledge).
The data collection process was conducted by two nurse specialists who administered the 30 questionnaires pre- and post-AIC and at 3 months, obtained consent, collected questionnaires, and both marked and second marked and confirmed data entries. Data from the questionnaires was entered into a spreadsheet using SPSS data entry.
Statistics
Testretest data were used to assess the stability and internal consistency of the PKQ. Intraclass correlation coefficient analysis was applied to assess stability using a 2-way mixed effect model (consistency definition) to provide an alpha coefficient for each individual's test and retest response. Overall score stability was assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient. The method used for assessing internal consistency of the baseline scores was Cronbach's alpha. The minimum acceptable level for internal consistency coefficient is between 0.50 and 0.70 [10].
Continuous data are presented through descriptive statistics, i.e. mean and standard deviation (S.D.). Correlation between pre-education scores and post-education scores and demographic data were compared using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Paired t-test was used to compare normally distributed data. MannWhitney U-tests were used to compare data where normal distribution could not be assumed. 2-test was used to compare frequencies. For 2 x 2 tabulations of frequencies when expected counts were below 5, Fisher's exact test was used. The above were all calculated using the statistical package SPSS for Windows release (11.0.0).
During the design stage, the sample size was calculated via a power calculation (80% at the 0.05 level of significance) using the Minitab version 13.20 statistical software package. From the pilot study of 15 patients, mean change in score = 1.2, standard deviation = 1.6, effect size = 0.75. A sample size of at least 29 patients was required for this study.
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Validity
Subjectively the PKQ demonstrates face and content validity.
PKQ results pre-and post-AIC
Thirty patients participated in the study. All 30 patients completed pre- and post-PKQs, but four patients failed to complete the 3-month PKQ. Demographic data are shown in Table 4, and Table 5 shows pre-AIC scores and characteristics. Mean scores from the study (n = 30) show men achieving a mean pre-AIC score of 7.6 and women 7.9. The post-AIC score increased to 9.2 for men and 9.9 for women. At 3 months the mean score for men was 8.4 and women 9.7.
|
|
|
No association was demonstrated between change in 3-month score and age, disease duration or education level.
Post-AIC there was no significant difference in the improvement between men and women. However at 3 months there is a statistically significant association (2-test P = 0.05) towards females maintaining knowledge better than men (shown in Table 6).
|
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
This study confirms that patient knowledge increases following group educational intervention, as previously shown [13, 14]. However this has not before been demonstrated in those with early RA. As discussed, timing of educational interventions can alter outcome. The AIC has been specifically targeted at those patients with early RA resulting in significant knowledge gains. This is particularly relevant when considering the evidence that early educational intervention greatly reduces the chance of disability [7] and in addition knowledge gained early on in the disease process sets the trend for personal disease management, which continues throughout life [7].
A specific limitation of the study concerns the size of the sample. It is recognized that this study does have a small sample; however, the flow of the study and in particular the data collection coincides with the pattern of the AIC, and recruitment to this is dependent on newly diagnosed RA patients. The power calculation using the pilot study data required a sample of at least 29 patients in order to show a statistical significance and this was achieved as the sample included 30 patients. Importantly the sample was large enough to show that the PKQ is sensitive to change and is therefore extremely useful at recording increases in knowledge scores in the small groups of early RA patients attending education.
This PKQ is unable to show criterion validity, because as yet there is no recognized accepted gold standard to use for comparison. The Hill PKQ [8] is too difficult as demonstrated by low scores despite long-standing disease and the ACREU [9] Likert response is unsuitable for multichoice; in addition neither were designed or validated for use in early RA.
There is some interesting evidence relating to gender that emerged from this study. Initial improvement in the PKQ post-AIC was not significantly different between men and women. However at 3 months there is an association towards females maintaining PKQ scores better than men. Perhaps the education programme is too female orientated? Changes can be made to delivery of education and the PKQ can be used to assess whether these improvements have been effective. With larger numbers we may be able to identify patients who do not improve with group education and offer them individual education as an alternative.
In addition it is useful to know how much knowledge is retained post-AIC and this is currently evaluated at 3 months. However, further evaluation is required with more patient numbers to be able to show statistical evidence of retention, consistent with other findings where knowledge gain was maintained at 12 months and 5 yr, respectively [14, 15]. Thus far this PKQ has not been used in any other rheumatology unit. To ensure that these results can be generalized to the wider RA population this would need to be undertaken.
In addition, further recommended study would require correlation of knowledge scores with other outcome measures such as disease activity score (DAS), health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) and RA quality of life (QOL). This may facilitate further means with which to demonstrate effectiveness of patient education in those with early RA. The authors recognize that knowledge is not the only measurable effect of AIC and other meaningful effects are measured using the short form (SF)36 and patient satisfaction questionnaires.
![]() |
Conclusion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The main advantage of this PKQ is that it has been designed specifically to assess changes in the knowledge scores of early RA patients attending a rheumatology unit. This PKQ is validated, sensitive to change and producing interesting results following AIC. Despite low education levels associated with low initial PKQ scores it appears that the AIC targeted at the correct level improves patient knowledge.
The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
![]() |
Acknowledgments |
---|
|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|