Adaptation and Validation of a Questionnaire to Measure Satisfaction With Telephone Care Among Individuals Living With Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) require routine medical follow-up. The usage of telephone care (TC) appointments increased because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We aimed to adapt a questionnaire to evaluate satisfaction with TC use and validate it among IBD individuals. Methods A committee of experts adapted the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire to the TC context and validated its use in individuals with IBD. This committee included three IBD gastroenterology care providers (GCPs), two IBD-patient partners, and two healthcare researchers. The committee evaluated the content validity of the adapted items to measure TC satisfaction. A pilot study assessed the readability and usability of the questionnaire. Individuals with IBD in Saskatchewan completed an online survey with the adapted questionnaire between December 2021 and April 2022. Data were analyzed using descriptive and correlational techniques. Psychometric analyses were conducted to examine the reliability and validity of the questionnaire. Results The committee of experts developed the Telephone Care Satisfaction Questionnaire (TCSQ patient), with 16 items and one overall item for TC satisfaction. After the pilot, 87 IBD individuals participated in the online survey. A strong correlation was observed between the 16-item standardized level of TC satisfaction and the overall item, r = 0.85 (95%CI 0.78–0.90, p < 0.001). The TCSQ patient had optimal internal reliability (α = 0.96). Two dimensions were identified in the exploratory factor analysis (i.e., TC usefulness and convenience). Conclusion The TCSQ patient is a valid and reliable measure of TC satisfaction among individuals with IBD. This questionnaire demonstrated excellent psychometric properties and we recommend its use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".