Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the revised Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire in French
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The revised Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire allows capture of the beliefs and attitudes of older adults and caregivers towards deprescribing. \n Objectives: To translate and validate the rPATD questionnaire into French. \n Methods: The French rPATD was translated using forward-backward translation. Psychometric properties were evaluated in both older adults ≥65 years living in the community or in institutions and who were taking at least one chronic medication and in caregivers of older adults with similar characteristics. Participants were recruited in four French-speaking countries (Belgium, Canada, France and Switzerland). Face and content validity were assessed during the translation process. Construct validity (exploratory factor analysis (EFA)) and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) were investigated in questionnaires without missing data. Test-retest reliability was evaluated using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) in a sample of participants. \n Results: In total, 320 questionnaires from older adults and 215 questionnaires from caregivers were included to evaluate construct validity and internal consistency. EFA extracted four factors in the older adults' and caregivers' versions of the questionnaire consistent with the English rPATD. The extracted factors related to the perceived burden of medication taking, the beliefs in appropriateness of medications, concerns about stopping medications and the level of involvement in making decisions and of knowledge of medications. Internal consistency was satisfactory for three factors for both versions (Cronbach's alpha >0.70), with lower internal consistency in the concerns about stopping factor. Test-retest reliability was overall good for all factors in the caregivers' version (ICC > 0.75) while for the older adults' version, moderate (ICC range: 0.75-0.50) to good ICC values were found. \n Conclusions: The French rPATD presents globally good psychometric properties and can be used to explore attitudes towards deprescribing in French-speaking older adults and caregivers.
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 | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".