Development and Validation of the Kidney Transplant Understanding Tool (K-TUT)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Several educational interventions have been designed to improve patient knowledge before and after kidney transplantation. However, evaluation of such interventions has been difficult because validated instruments to measure knowledge-based outcomes in this population have not been developed. Objective To create a tool to measure patient knowledge of kidney transplantation and to evaluate its validity. Methods The Kidney Transplant Understanding Tool (K-TUT) was created using a stepwise iterative process. Experts in the field and transplant recipients were consulted to establish content validity. The K-TUT consists of 9 true/false and 13 multiple-choice questions, and scores are based on the number correct answers [YES/NO format] of 69 items. The questionnaire was piloted in a study that also measured health literacy (via the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy) in transplant candidates, whereas the main survey was mailed to transplant recipients. Test-retest was performed, and completed surveys were analyzed for internal consistency, construct validity, floor and ceiling effects, and reproducibility. Results Surveys were offered to 106 pretransplant patients and 235 in the posttransplant period, and response rates were 38.7% (41/106) and 63.4% (149/235), respectively. The mean corrected scores were 53.1 ± 8.5 (77%) and 56.2 ± 6.3 (81%), respectively. Test-retest was performed over 20% of both cohorts and percent agreement ranged between 70% and 100% in the pretransplant group and 66% and 100% in the posttransplant group. Cronbach α ranged from 0.794 to 0.875 in all cohorts indicating favorable internal consistency. Increased health literacy in the pretransplant group was significantly associated with increased knowledge ( r = 0.52; P < 0.001), suggestive of construct validity, and the absence of floor and ceiling effects was positive. The majority of transplant recipients (98/148, 67%) believed the questionnaire adequately assessed transplant knowledge, about a quarter (36/148, 24.3%) were “unsure,” and 85% (126/148) agreed that no questions should be removed. Conclusions Although more study is warranted to further assess psychometric properties, the K-TUT appears to be a promising tool to measure transplant knowledge.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».