Engaging patients, family caregivers and healthcare providers to develop metrics tailored to a palliative care population: a content validity process
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Assessment of patient readiness for hospital discharge has been advocated as an important component of discharge preparation. However, no measures focused on hospital-to-home transitions for patients receiving a palliative approach to care, or the associated difficulties in coping at home after hospital discharge, have been developed to date. Using a co-design approach, the purpose of this study was to (1) adapt two scales to a palliative care population, one of which was developed to assess readiness for the hospital-to-home transition and another developed to assess difficulty in coping post-transition and to (2) test the content validity of both scales from the perspectives of patients, family caregivers, and healthcare providers. The scales chosen for adaptation were the Readiness for Hospital Discharge Scale and Post-Discharge Coping Difficulty Scale. METHODOLOGY: The research team made initial adaptations to scale language prior to developing three parallel versions of each scale to be patient-, family caregiver-, and healthcare provider-facing. We conducted content validity testing of the items on both scales by asking each participant group to rate scale items on their usefulness, and to provide suggestions on ways items could be improved. We calculated the Item Content Validity Index and a modified Kappa statistic for each scale item, and calculated the Scale Content Validity Index for each of the three versions of the scales. Refinements were informed by qualitative feedback provided by participants during the content validity process. Final refinements were informed by members of a Patient and Family Advisory Council, and healthcare provider research team members. RESULTS: Moderate modifications were required to the three versions of both scales. Modifications included adding items, modifying item language, and adding examples in parentheses to enhance item context. Patients, family caregivers, and healthcare providers deemed the research team's initial modifications to the scales useful, as evidenced by each scale yielding a Scale Content Validity Index of higher than 0.5. CONCLUSION: The methodology provided can be used as an example of ways to engage and leverage the experiences of healthcare system users and healthcare providers throughout the outcome measures development process. The next steps will be to utilize the adapted scales as intervention outcome measures in a subsequent implementation study.
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.
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 | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| 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 découle