Dataset Information

Acceptability and face validity of two mental health screening tools for use in the routine surgical setting

ABSTRACT:

Background

Preoperative assessment of mental health rarely occurs within routine surgery. Any screening tool selected to form part of this process must be deemed practical, acceptable and valid by clinicians and consumers alike. This study aims to assess the acceptability and face validity of two existing mental health screening tools to select one for further development and use in the routine surgical setting.

Methods

A survey of clinicians and consumers was conducted from October 2020 to March 2021 at a tertiary hospital in Sydney, Australia. Using a Likert scale (1–5, lowest to highest rating), the clinicians evaluated four domains for acceptability and two for validity (six overall) and the consumers four domains for acceptability and one for validity (five overall) on the preoperative use of the amended Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) and the Somatic and Psychological Health Report-12 (SPHERE-12). Consensus was achieved through a rating of 4 or 5 being given by 70% or more of participants with domains able to remain unchanged. Free text responses were analysed into themes.

Results

A total of 73 participants (51 clinicians; 22 consumers) were included. The K10 received consensus scores (≥ 70%) in four out of six domains for clinicians (4/4 acceptability; 0/2 validity), and all five domains for consumers (4/4 acceptability; 1/1 validity). The SPHERE-12 received consensus scores (≥ 70%) in three domains for clinicians (3/4 acceptability; 0/2 validity), and three domains for consumers (3/4 acceptability; 0/1 validity). Six qualitative themes were described including (1) amendments to tool structure and language; (2) scale response options; (3) difficulty with somatic questions; (4) practicality and familiarity with K10; (5) challenges for specific patient cohorts and (6) timing considerations for patients.

Conclusion

Adequate acceptability was established for the K10. However further development is required to strengthen its validity for this specific surgical cohort and purpose. Future research to determine the feasibility and acceptability of implementing and using the K10 in the routine surgical setting is now needed.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40359-021-00672-w.

SUBMITTER: McBride K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8556895 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSelf-reported substance use is more likely to be influenced by underreporting bias compared to the biological markers. Underreporting bias or validity of self-reported substance use depends on the study population and cannot be generalized to the entire population. This study aimed to compare the validity of self-reported substance use between research setting and primary health care setting from the same source population.Methods and materialsThe population in this study included from Rafsanjan Youth Cohort Study (RYCS) and from primary care health centers. The sample from RYCS is made up 607 participants, 113 (18.62%) women and 494 (81.38%) men and sample from PHC centers is made up 522 individuals including 252 (48.28%) women and 270 (51.72%) men. We compared two groups in respect of prevalence estimates based on self-reported substance use and urine test. Then for evaluating validity of self-reported substance use in both group, the results of reference standard, urine tests, were compared with the results of self-reported drug use using measures of concordance.ResultsThe prevalence of substance use based on urine test was significantly higher in both settings compared to self-reported substance use over the past 72 h. The sensitivity of self-report substance use over the past 72 h in research setting was 39.4, 20, 10% and zero for opium, methadone, cannabis and amphetamine, respectively and in primary health care setting was 50, 20.7, 12.5% and zero for opium, methadone, cannabis and amphetamine, respectively. The level of agreement between self-reported substance use over the past 72 h and urine test indicated fair and moderate agreement for opium in both research and primary health care settings, respectively and also slight agreement for methadone and cannabis in both settings were reported. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of self-reported substance use. For all substances, the level of agreement increased with longer recall periods. The specificity of self-report for all substances in both groups was more than 99%.ConclusionIndividuals in primary health care setting were more likely to self-reported substance use than in research setting, but setting did not have a statistically significant effect in terms of self-reported substance use. Programs that rely on self-reported substance use may not estimate the exact prevalence of substance use in both research and primary health care settings, especially for substances that have a higher social stigma. Therefore, it is recommended that self-report and biological indicators be used for more accurate evaluation in substance use studies. It is also suggested that future epidemiological studies be performed to reduce bias of social desirability and find a method providing the highest level of privacy.