Table 1
Sample characteristics (N = 433).
| N | % | |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| Female | 307 | 71% |
| Male | 126 | 29% |
| Age | ||
| 65+ | 53 | 12% |
| 50–64 | 193 | 45% |
| 35–49 | 133 | 31% |
| 18–34 | 54 | 12% |
| Region of residence | ||
| Northern Italy | 190 | 44% |
| Central Italy | 84 | 19% |
| South Italy | 159 | 37% |
| Marital status | ||
| Married | 288 | 66% |
| Divorced | 98 | 23% |
| Single | 47 | 11% |
| Education | ||
| University degree | 143 | 33% |
| High school diploma | 237 | 55% |
| Middle school diploma | 53 | 12% |
| Employment | ||
| Employed | 287 | 66% |
| Retired | 55 | 13% |
| Unemployed | 91 | 21% |
| Distance between home and clinics | ||
| More than 50 km | 47 | 11% |
| Between 20 km and 50 km | 98 | 23% |
| Less than 20 km | 288 | 66% |
| Years from diagnosis | ||
| More than 10 | 110 | 26% |
| Between 3 and 10 | 230 | 53% |
| Less than 3 | 93 | 21% |
| Presence of other diseases | ||
| Yes | 254 | 59% |
| No | 179 | 41% |
| Self-reported health (mean = 59 points, standard deviation = 22 points) | ||
| High (>75 points) | 109 | 25% |
| Medium (≥50 and ≤75 points) | 219 | 51% |
| Low (<50 points) | 105 | 24% |
| PHE-s® scores (engagement position) | ||
| Blackout | 34 | 9% |
| Arousal | 146 | 33% |
| Adhesion | 220 | 51% |
| Eudaimonic Project | 33 | 7% |
Table 2
Explorative factor analysis: factor loadings.
| SURVEY ITEMS | FACTOR ONE: PERSON-CENTRED CARE | FACTOR TWO: HEALTH SERVICE DELIVERY |
|---|---|---|
| Q1: holistic care | .833 | .075 |
| Q2: health services without discrimination or distinctions | .867 | –.057 |
| Q3: involvement in healthcare decision-making | .780 | .091 |
| Q4: health services with continuity of professionals | .897 | –.031 |
| Q5: support from GP | .813 | –.035 |
| Q6: support from rheumatology specialists | .781 | .046 |
| Q7: proactivity of GP | .035 | .881 |
| Q8: proactivity of rheumatology specialists | –.011 | .897 |
| Q9: closeness of rheumatology clinics | .074 | .715 |
| Q10: home visit by GP | .097 | .666 |
| Q11: home visit by rheumatology specialists | –.009 | .736 |
| Q12: waiting time for GP appointment | .103 | .665 |
| Q13: waiting time for rheumatology examination | –.081 | .949 |
| Q14: specific doctor for rheumatology examination | –.139 | .984 |
| Q15: preferred day and time for rheumatology examination | .078 | .679 |
| Q16: book rheumatology examination online | .170 | .545 |
| Q17: useful electronic health record | .065 | .813 |
| Q18: GP examination online | –.065 | .861 |
| Q19: rheumatology examination online | –.100 | .983 |
[i] Note: Q(n): Question (item) number.
Figure 1
Experience-Importance matrix: entire sample.
Table 3
Differences across subgroups: Kruskal-Wallis H and Quade’s tests.
| VARIABLE | FACTOR ONE: PERSON-CENTRED CARE | FACTOR TWO: HEALTH SERVICE DELIVERY | CONTROLLED VARIABLES (CONFOUNDERS) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXPERIENCE | IMPORTANCE | EXPERIENCE | IMPORTANCE | ||
| Sex | – | H(1) = 45.292 p < .001 | H(1) = 20.201 p < .001 | H(1) = 6.998 p = .008 | None |
| Age | – | – | H(3) = 24.216 p < .001 | – | None |
| Region of residence | – | – | – | – | None |
| Marital status | – | – | – | – | Age |
| Education | – | – | – | – | Sex, age, region of residence |
| Employment | – | – | F(2,430) = 4.266 p = .015 | – | Sex, age, region of residence, education |
| Distance between home and clinics | – | – | – | – | None |
| Years from diagnosis | – | – | – | – | Age |
| Presence of other diseases | – | F(1,431) = 4.944 p = .027 | F(1,431) = 4.187 p = .041 | – | Age |
| Self-reported health | F(2,430) = 5.267 p = .005 | – | F(2,430) = 7.488 p < .001 | F(2,430) = 3.254 p = .040 | Sex, age, region, education, employment, years from diagnosis, presence of other diseases |
[i] Note: H: Kruskal-Wallis H test, F: Quade’s test, –: not significant (p >.05).
Table 4
Differences across subgroups: Two groups and multiple groups comparisons.
| VARIABLE | FACTOR ONE: PERSON-CENTRED CARE | FACTOR TWO: HEALTH SERVICE DELIVERY | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXPERIENCE | IMPORTANCE | EXPERIENCE | IMPORTANCE | |
| Sex | ||||
| Female vs. Male | – | Δ = .50 p < .001 | Δ = –.48 p < .001 | Δ = .18 p = .008 |
| Age | ||||
| 65+ vs. 50–64 | – | – | – | – |
| 65+ vs. 35–49 | – | – | – | – |
| 65+ vs. 18–34 | – | – | Δ = –.63 p = .009 | – |
| 50-64 vs. 35–49 | – | – | Δ = –.43 p = .004 | – |
| 50-64 vs. 18–34 | – | – | Δ = –.66 p < .000 | – |
| 35-49 vs. 18–34 | – | – | – | – |
| Employment | ||||
| Unemployed vs. Employed | – | – | Δ = –.52 p = .042 | – |
| Unemployed vs Retired | – | – | – | – |
| Employed vs Retired | – | – | – | – |
| Presence of other diseases | ||||
| Yes vs. No | – | Δ = .14 p = .027 | Δ = –.22 p = .041 | – |
| Self-reported health | ||||
| Low vs. Medium | – | – | Δ = –.40 p = .035 | – |
| Low vs. High | Δ = –.42 p = .006 | – | Δ = –.58 p = .001 | – |
| Medium vs High | – | – | – | – |
[i] Note: Δ: difference in the mean scores between the two subgroups, –: not significant (p >.05).
Figure 2
Experience-Importance matrix: subgroups with different health engagement profiles.