Patient engagement (PE), or a patient’s participation in their healthcare, is an important component of comprehensive healthcare delivery, yet there is not an existing, publicly available, measurement tool to assess PE capacity and behaviours. We sought to develop a survey to measure PE capacity and behaviours for use in ambulatory healthcare clinics.

Measure development and psychometric evaluation.

A total of 1180 adults in the USA from 2022 to 2024, including 1050 individuals who had indicated they had seen a healthcare provider in the prior 12 months who were recruited nationally via social media across three separate samples; 8 patient advisors and healthcare providers recruited from a large, midwestern US Academic Medical Center; and 122 patients recruited from five participating ambulatory clinics in the Midwestern USA.

An initial survey was developed based on a concept mapping approach with a Project Advisory Board composed of patients, researchers and clinicians. Social media was then used to recruit 540 participants nationally (Sample 1) to complete the initial, 101-item version of the survey to generate data for factor analysis. We conducted exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to assess model and item fit to inform item reduction, and subsequently conducted cognitive interviews with eight additional participants (patient advisors and providers; Sample 2), who read survey items aloud, shared their thoughts and selected a response. The survey was revised and shortened based on these results. Next, a test–retest survey, also administered nationally via another round of social media recruitment, was administered two times to a separate sample (n=155; Sample 3), 2 weeks apart. We further revised the survey to remove items with low temporal stability based on these results. For clinic administration, research staff approached patients (n=122; Sample 4) in waiting rooms in one of five ambulatory clinics to complete the survey electronically or on paper to determine feasibility of in-clinic survey completion. We engaged in further item reduction based on provider feedback about survey length and fielded a final revised and shortened survey nationally via a final round of social media recruitment (n=355; Sample 5) to obtain psychometric data on this final version.

Cronbach’s alphas, intraclass correlations (ICCs), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), standardised root mean squared residual (SRMR).

The final PE Capacity Survey (PECS) includes six domains across two scales: ‘engagement behaviours’ (ie, preparing for appointments, ensuring understanding, adhering to care) and ‘engagement capacity’ (ie, healthcare navigation resources, resilience, relationship with provider). The PECS is 18 questions, can be completed during a clinic visit in less than 10 minutes, and produces scores which demonstrate acceptable internal consistency reliability (α=0.72 engagement behaviours, 0.76 engagement capacity), indicating items are measuring the same overarching construct. The scales also had high test–retest reliability (ICC=0.82 behaviours, 0.86 capacity), indicating stability of response over time, and expected dimensionality with high fit indices for the final scales (behaviours: CFI=0.97; RMSEA=0.07; SRMR=0.05; capacity: CFI=0.99; RMSEA=0.06; SRMR=0.06), indicating initial evidence of construct validity.

The PECS is the first known measure to assess patients’ capacity for engagement and represents a step toward informing interventions and care plans that acknowledge a patient’s engagement capacity and supporting engagement behaviours. Future work should be done to validate the measure in other languages and patient populations, and to assess criterion-related validity of the measure against patient outcomes.

Randomised controlled trials have aimed to assess the effectiveness of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) with curative intent versus surgical resection for individuals diagnosed with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) but have failed to recruit sufficient numbers of patients. Non-randomised studies for early-stage NSCLC have reported mixed outcomes following curative SABR versus surgical resection, but did not fully address confounding by indication. The Surgery Or RadioTherapy for early-stage cancer study (SORT) will assess the comparative effectiveness of SABR with curative intent versus surgical resection for NSCLC with a target trial emulation approach, as this can reduce biases in observational studies that aim to estimate the causal effect of interventions.

The SORT study will use the National Cancer Registry for individuals diagnosed with early-stage NSCLC in England during 2015–2020 (inclusive) who received SABR with curative intent or surgical resection. These data will be linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, National Radiotherapy Data Set and the Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy dataset to obtain information on clinical and sociodemographic characteristics and the treatment received. This target trial emulation will define study population eligibility criteria and regimens for SABR with curative intent and surgical resection. We will reduce the risk of residual confounding with instrumental variable analyses that will exploit geographical variation across the National Health Service in England in the use of SABR with curative intent versus surgical resection for early-stage NSCLC. The primary outcome will be 3-year all-cause mortality after treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes will include 3-month, 6-month, 12-month and 24-month all-cause and lung-cancer mortality, time to death, numbers of hospitalisations, incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness.

Ethical approval was obtained from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Research Ethics Committee (reference number 29 717–1). Results will be disseminated to clinicians, patients, policy-makers and researchers.