Mid Sweden University

Objectives:

To identify self-report, self-management measures for adults with chronic conditions, and describe their purpose, theoretical foundation, dimensionality (multi versus uni), and scope (generic versus condition specific). Methods: A search of four databases (8479 articles) resulted in a scoping review of 28 self-management measures. Results: Although authors identified tools as measures of self-management, wide variation in constructs measured, purpose, and theoretical foundations existed. Subscales on 13 multidimensional tools collectively measure domains of self-management relevant to clients, however no one tool’s subscales cover all domains. Conclusions: Viewing self-management as a complex, multidimensional whole, demonstrated that existing measures assess different, related aspects of self-management. Activities and social roles, though important to patients, are rarely measured. Measures with capacity to quantify and distinguish aspects of self-management may promote tailored patient care. Practice implications: In selecting tools for research or assessment, the reason for development, definitions, and theories underpinning the measure should be scrutinized. Our ability to measure self-management must be rigorously mapped to provide comprehensive and system-wide care for clients with chronic conditions. Viewing self-management as a complex whole will help practitioners to understand the patient perspective and their contribution in supporting each individual patient.