Dataset Information

Development of a brief, generic, modular resource-use measure (ModRUM): cognitive interviews with patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Self-report resource-use measures (RUMs) are often used to collect healthcare use data from participants in healthcare studies. However, RUMs are typically adapted from existing measures on a study-by-study basis, resulting in a lack of standardisation which limits comparability across studies. Psychometric testing of RUMs is rarely conducted. This paper reports on cognitive interviews with patients to test the content validity and acceptability of a new RUM (ModRUM). ModRUM is a brief, generic RUM with a core module on healthcare use and questions/modules to increase depth and breadth.

Methods

A purposeful sampling strategy with maximum variation was used to recruit patients from primary care to participate in "think-aloud" interviews with retrospective probing. Participants verbalised their thought processes as they completed ModRUM, which allowed errors (issues with completion) to be identified. The interviewer asked follow-up and probing questions to investigate errors, clarity and acceptability. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Research team members independently scored transcripts to identify errors in comprehension, recall, judgement and response. Members met to agree on final scores. Interview transcripts were analysed qualitatively using techniques of constant comparison, to identify common themes and ideas for improvement. Data collection and analysis were performed concurrently and in rounds.

Results

Twenty participants were interviewed between December 2019 and March 2020. Interviews were conducted in three rounds, with revisions made iteratively and in response to interview findings. Seven participants completed the core module and 13 completed the core module plus depth questions. Of 71 issues, 28 were in comprehension, 14 in retrieval, 10 in judgement, 18 in response and 1 uncategorised. Most issues (21 issues by 2 participants) were due to participants including family healthcare use. Other issues included using incorrect recall periods (5 issues) and overlooking questions leading to missing responses (9 issues). Common participant suggestions included highlighting important details and providing additional definition or examples for some terms. The length, content and layout were acceptable to most participants.

Conclusions

A generic RUM is needed to increase study comparability. RUM development requires thorough testing to demonstrate and enhance validity. Cognitive interviewing has demonstrated the acceptability and content validity of ModRUM.

SUBMITTER: Garfield K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8058988 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOrganizational readiness is a key factor for successful implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs), but a valid and reliable measure to assess readiness across contexts and settings is needed. The R = MC2 heuristic posits that organizational readiness stems from an organization's motivation, capacity to implement a specific innovation, and its general capacity. This paper describes a process used to examine the face and content validity of items in a readiness survey developed to assess organizational readiness (based on R = MC2) among federally qualified health centers (FQHC) implementing colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) EBIs.MethodsWe conducted 20 cognitive interviews with FQHC staff (clinical and non-clinical) in South Carolina and Texas. Participants were provided a subset of items from the readiness survey to review. A semi-structured interview guide was developed to elicit feedback from participants using "think aloud" and probing techniques. Participants were recruited using a purposive sampling approach and interviews were conducted virtually using Zoom and WebEx. Participants were asked 1) about the relevancy of items, 2) how they interpreted the meaning of items or specific terms, 3) to identify items that were difficult to understand, and 4) how items could be improved. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded in ATLAS.ti. Findings were used to revise the readiness survey.ResultsKey recommendations included reducing the survey length and removing redundant or difficult to understand items. Additionally, participants recommended using consistent terms throughout (e.g., other units/teams vs. departments) the survey and changing pronouns (e.g., people, we) to be more specific (e.g., leadership, staff). Moreover, participants recommended specifying ambiguous terms (e.g., define what "better" means).ConclusionUse of cognitive interviews allowed for an engaged process to refine an existing measure of readiness. The improved and finalized readiness survey can be used to support and improve implementation of CRCS EBIs in the clinic setting and thus reduce the cancer burden and cancer-related health disparities.

Project description:BackgroundCatastrophic cognitive appraisals, similar to those in anxiety disorders, are implicated in depersonalisation, a form of dissociation. No scales exist to measure appraisals of dissociative experiences. Dissociation is common in psychosis. Misinterpretations of dissociative experiences may maintain psychotic symptoms. Therefore, assessing appraisals in this context may be valuable.AimsThe primary aim was to develop a measure of key appraisals of dissociation in psychosis. Secondary aims were to test the relationship between appraisals and psychotic experiences (paranoia and hallucinations), and determine whether appraisals explain additional variance in psychotic symptoms above dissociative symptoms.MethodFifty items were generated from transcripts of interviews with patients. The measure was developed and psychometrically validated via factor analysis of data from 9902 general population participants and 1026 patients with psychosis. Convergent validity, test-re-test reliability, and internal reliability were assessed. Regression analyses tested relationships with psychotic symptoms.ResultsA 13-item single-factor measure was developed. Factor analysis indicated good model fit [χ2(65) = 247.173, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.960, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.052]. The scale had good convergent validity with a rumination (non-clinical: r = 0.71; clinical: r = 0.73) and dissociation measure (r = 0.81; r = 0.80), high internal consistency (α = 0.93; α = 0.93), and excellent 1-week test-re-test reliability [intraclass correlation (ICC) = 0.90]. It explained variance in psychotic symptoms (paranoia: 36.4%; hallucinations: 35.0%), including additional variance compared with dissociation alone (paranoia: 5.3%; hallucinations: 2.3%).ConclusionsThe Cognitive Appraisals of Dissociation in Psychosis (CAD-P) measure is a psychometrically robust scale identifying appraisals of dissociative experiences in psychosis and is associated with the presence of psychotic experiences. It is likely to prove useful for clinical assessment and research.

Project description:BackgroundBowel cancer is the third most common cause of cancer death worldwide. Bowel screening has been shown to reduce mortality and primary care interventions have been successful in increasing uptake of screening. Using evidence-based theory to inform the development of such interventions has been shown to increase their effectiveness. This study aimed to develop and refine a brief evidence-based intervention for eligible individuals whom have not responded to their last bowel screening invitation (non-responders), for opportunistic use by primary care providers during routine consultations.MethodsThe development of a brief intervention involving a conversation between primary care providers and non-responders was informed by a multi-faceted model comprising: research team workshop and meetings to draw on expertise; evidence from the literature regarding barriers to bowel screening and effective strategies to promote informed participation; relevant psychological theory, and intervention development and behaviour change guidance. Qualitative telephone interviews with 1) bowel screening stakeholders and 2) patient non-responders explored views regarding the acceptability of the intervention to help refine its content and process.ResultsThe intervention provides a theory and evidence-based tool designed to be incorporated within current primary care practice. Bowel screening stakeholders were supportive of the intervention and recognised the importance of the role of primary care. Interviews highlighted the importance of brevity and simplicity to incorporate the intervention into routine clinical care. Non-responders similarly found the intervention acceptable, valuing a holistic approach to their care. Moreover, they expected their primary care provider to encourage participation.ConclusionsA theory-based brief conversation for use in a primary care consultation was acceptable to bowel screening stakeholders and potential recipients, reflecting a health promoting primary care ethos. Findings indicate that it is appropriate to test the intervention in primary care in a feasibility study.