Beyond diagnostic test performance: two content-validated questionnaires assessing patient and clinician satisfaction with diagnostic tests
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Utilization of diagnostic tests depends not only on diagnostic accuracy but also on clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions of the diagnostic test, including ease-of-use and rapidity of results. However, there has been little focus on validated measures for diagnostic test satisfaction in the literature. Satisfaction data can provide valuable information for decision-makers evaluating whether to approve, reimburse, or implement new diagnostic tests. This study describes the development and content validation of one patient-reported outcome instrument and one clinician instrument designed to evaluate satisfaction and preferences for diagnostic tests for acute medical events. METHODS: The instruments were developed using concept elicitation interviews (20 patients; 20 clinicians), clinical expert input, and cognitive debriefing interviews (10 patients; 10 clinicians). Patients (who had undergone a diagnostic test for an acute medical event within 3 months prior) and clinicians (≥2 years of experience performing diagnostic tests; 5+ tests per month) were recruited from the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. Cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted, with evidence-based revisions made to the instruments between rounds. RESULTS: Study findings supported the content validity of the instruments and suitability for intended use. Specifically, concept elicitation interviews revealed factors impacting patient and clinician satisfaction with diagnostic tests, informing development of the Patient Satisfaction with Diagnostic Test Questionnaire (PSDT-Q) and Clinician Satisfaction with Diagnostic Test Questionnaire (CSDT-Q). Evidence-based revisions from cognitive debriefing interviews included wording updates, response option alterations, and inclusion of additional items to facilitate conceptual comprehensiveness. The content-validated PSDT-Q comprised four sections (20 items) assessing satisfaction with the diagnostic test process, satisfaction with sample/measurement collection, emotional well-being during the diagnostic test process, and preference between two diagnostic tests (optional module). The content-validated CSDT-Q comprised three sections (12 items) assessing satisfaction, confidence, and preference for the diagnostic test under study versus standard care. CONCLUSION: The PSDT-Q and CSDT-Q are the first content-validated instruments to measure patient and clinician satisfaction with diagnostic tests. Ongoing clinical research will assess the psychometric properties of these instruments. Integrating evidence-based measurement tools like these into clinical studies and health technology evaluations can help ensure that the preferences of those directly impacted by diagnostic innovations are represented in decision-making.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.240 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it