Four New Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Examining Health-Seeking Behavior in Persons With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (REDD-CAT): Instrument Development Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) includes mastery of complex care activities, self-management skills, and routine health care encounters to optimize glucose control and achieve good health. Given the lifelong course of T2DM, patients are faced with navigating complex medical and disease-specific information. This health-seeking behavior is a driver of health disparities and is associated with hospitalization and readmission. Given that health-seeking behavior is a potentially intervenable social determinant of health, a better understanding of how people navigate these complex systems is warranted. OBJECTIVE: To address this need, we aimed to develop new patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures that evaluate health-seeking behavior in persons with T2DM. These new PROs were designed to be included in the Re-Engineered Discharge for Diabetes-Computer Adaptive Test (REDD-CAT) measurement system, which includes several other PROs that capture the importance of social determinants of health. METHODS: Overall, 225 participants with T2DM completed 56 self-report items that examined health-seeking behaviors. Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory were used for measurement development. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA; criterion ratio of eigenvalue 1 to eigenvalue 2 being >4; variance for eigenvalue 1 ≥40%) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; criterion 1-factor CFA loading <.50; 1-factor CFA residual correlation >.20; comparative fit index ≥0.90; Tucker-Lewis index ≥0.90; root mean square error of approximation <0.15) were used to determine unidimensional sets of items. Items with sparse responses, low-adjusted total score correlations, nonmonotonicity, low factor loading, and high residual correlations of high error modification indices were candidates for exclusion. A constrained graded response model was used to examine item misfit, and differential item functioning was examined to identify item bias. Cronbach α was used to examine internal consistency reliability for the new PROs (criterion ≥0.70), and floor and ceiling effects were examined (criterion ≤20%). RESULTS: Four unidimensional sets of items were supported by EFA (all EFA eigenvalue ratios >4; variance for eigenvalue 1=41.4%-67.3%) and CFA (fit statistics all exceeded criterion values). This included (1) "Health-Seeking Behavior: PCP-Specific" (6 items); (2) "Health-Seeking Behavior: General Beliefs" (13 items); (3) "Health-Seeking Behavior: Family or Friends-Specific" (5 items); and (4) "Health-Seeking Behavior: Internet-Specific" (4 items). All items were devoid of differential item functioning for age, sex, education, or socioeconomic status factors. "Health-Seeking Behavior: General Beliefs" was developed to include both a computer adaptive test and a 6-item short form version; all other PROs were developed as static short forms. The psychometric reliability of these new PROs was supported; internal consistency ranged from acceptable to excellent (Cronbach α=.78-.91), and measures were free of significant floor or ceiling effects (floor effects range: 0%-8.9%; ceiling effects range: 0%-8.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The new REDD-CAT Health-Seeking Behavior PROs provide reliable assessments of health-seeking behaviors among those with T2DM.
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) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».