Dataset Information

Toward an Objective Assessment of Implementation Processes for Innovations in Health Care: Psychometric Evaluation of the Normalization Measure Development (NoMAD) Questionnaire Among Mental Health Care Professionals.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Successfully implementing eMental health (eMH) interventions in routine mental health care constitutes a major challenge. Reliable instruments to assess implementation progress are essential. The Normalization MeAsure Development (NoMAD) study developed a brief self-report questionnaire that could be helpful in measuring implementation progress. Based on the Normalization Process Theory, this instrument focuses on 4 generative mechanisms involved in implementation processes: coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflexive monitoring. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to translate the NoMAD questionnaire to Dutch and to confirm the factor structure in Dutch mental health care settings. METHODS:Dutch mental health care professionals involved in eMH implementation were invited to complete the translated NoMAD questionnaire. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to verify interpretability of scale scores for 3 models: (1) the theoretical 4-factor structure, (2) a unidimensional model, and (3) a hierarchical model. Potential improvements were explored, and correlated scale scores with 3 control questions were used to assess convergent validity. RESULTS:A total of 262 professionals from mental health care settings in the Netherlands completed the questionnaire (female: 81.7%; mean age: 45 [SD=11]). The internal consistency of the 20-item questionnaire was acceptable (.62≤alpha≤.85). The theorized 4-factor model fitted the data slightly better in the CFA than the hierarchical model (Comparative Fit Index=0.90, Tucker Lewis Index=0.88, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation=0.10, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual=0.12, χ22=22.5, P≤.05). However, the difference is small and possibly not outweighing the practical relevance of a total score and subscale scores combined in one hierarchical model. One item was identified as weak (λCA.2=0.10). A moderate-to-strong convergent validity with 3 control questions was found for the Collective Participation scale (.47≤r≤.54, P≤.05). CONCLUSIONS:NoMAD's theoretical factor structure was confirmed in Dutch mental health settings to acceptable standards but with room for improvement. The hierarchical model might prove useful in increasing the practical utility of the NoMAD questionnaire by combining a total score with information on the 4 generative mechanisms. Future research should assess the predictive value and responsiveness over time and elucidate the conceptual interpretability of NoMAD in eMH implementation practices.

SUBMITTER: Vis C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6401675 | biostudies-other | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDigital technologies (DTs) for older adults focus mainly on health care and are considered to have the potential to improve the well-being of older adults. However, adoption rates of these DTs are considered low. Although previous research has investigated possible reasons for adoption and acceptance of DT, age-based stereotypes (eg, those held by health care professionals) toward the abilities of older adults to use DTs have yet to be considered as possible barriers to adoption.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the influencing role of ageism in the context of health care professionals attitudes toward older adults' abilities to use health care DT. A further goal was to examine if social comparison and stereotype activation affect and moderate this association.MethodsA new measurement to assess health care professionals' attitudes toward older adults using technology (ATOAUT-10) was developed and used in 2 studies. Study 1 involved the development of the ATOAUT-10 scale using a principal component analysis and further examined health care professionals' attitudes toward the use of health care DTs and correlations with ageism. Study 2 further explored the correlation between ageism and ATOAUT in an experimental design with health care professionals.ResultsIn study 1, physiotherapists (N=97) rated older adults as young as 50 years as less able to use health care DT compared to younger adults (P<.001). A multiple regression analysis revealed that higher levels of ageism, beyond other predictors, were predictive of more negative ATOAUT, (β=.36; t=3.73; P<.001). In study 2, the salience of age was manipulated. Health care professionals (N=93) were randomly assigned to rate the abilities of a young or old person to use health care DT. Old age salience moderated the correlation between ageism and ATOAUT (R2=0.19; F6,85=3.35; P=.005), such that higher levels of ageism correlated with more negative ATOAUT in the old age salient condition, but not the young condition. Stereotype activation accounted for health care professionals' attitudes more than did the experience of working with older patients or the professionals' age.ConclusionsNegative and ageist attitudes of health care professionals can potentially affect how older adults are viewed in relation to DT and consequently might influence actual use and adoption of technology-based treatment. Future studies should broaden the validation of the ATOAUT-10 scale on more diverse samples and focus on the discriminatory aspect of ageism and self-ageism of older adults. This study calls for a focus on ageism as a determinant of adoption of DT.

Project description:Background and objectiveAccess to health care is a universal concern. Therefore, this study was conducted to develop a questionnaire to assess the Perceived Access to Health care based on Penchansky and Thomas's definition of access and the assessment of its psychometric properties.MethodThe initial questionnaire contains 31 items developed based on a deductive approach with an extensive review of the related literature. Content validity, face validity, construct validity, internal consistency, and instrument reliability were further examined. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS software version 24, R software version 4, and lavaan package.ResultsThe initial questionnaire was examined using qualitative content validity, and the necessary modifications were applied to each item. The content validity ratio (CVR) was approved in 30 items with a value greater than 0.78, and one item with a CVR value lower than 0.78 was removed. In the case of the content validity index (CVI), 29 items were approved with a CVI value of greater than 0.79, and one item with a CVI value between 0.70 and 0.79 was revised. In qualitative face validity, all items were approved by a panel of experts and the participants. All 30 items with an impact score index higher than 1.5 were approved for the next steps. The confirmatory factor analysis results showed that the six-factor model of access to health care has an appropriate fit. Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the questionnaire was calculated 0.86. The value of Cronbach's alpha for the dimensions of availability, accessibility, affordability, accommodation, acceptability, and awareness were 0.61, 0.76, 0.66, 0.60, 0.80, and 0.76, respectively. The Intraclass Correlation Index (ICC) value for reliability (test-retest) of the whole instrument was calculated 0.94 using the two-way mixed absolute agreement method.ConclusionThe success of health programs depends on eliminating barriers to access to provided health care services. One of the most critical barriers to understanding access is a perception of limited access. This questionnaire might be used further to understand perceived health care access in different global contexts.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although the importance of care coordination (CC) is well-recognized, cancer patients often receive poorly coordinated care across varied care settings and different oncology providers. Efforts to improve cancer care are hampered by lack of adequate measures. In this two-part, mixed-method study, we describe the development, refinement, and validation of a new care coordination instrument (CCI) designed to assess cancer patients' perception of CC. METHODS:In Study 1, an initial CCI was developed incorporating questions based on literature review. The items were then modified following four field tests conducted in a large academic hospital with oncology nurses (n?=?20) and cancer patients (n?=?120). This modified instrument was used to determine whether the CCI was able to distinguish CC between two practices (30 GI and 30 myeloma patients) within the same hospital setting. In Study 2, 68 patients receiving community-based care participated in seven focus groups. Based on these discussions, the CCI items were again refined, and psychometric evaluation was conducted to assess the quality of the instrument. RESULTS:Based on field tests, 3 domains of the CCI, Communication, Navigation, and Operational, were defined as critical components of CC. The Operational domain evaluates efficiency of care and is unique to this CCI. The field test demonstrated that GI patients reported significantly better CC Overall and for the Communication and Navigation domains (all p?<?.05). In Study 2, patients expressed concordance with the CCI items and their CC experiences, establishing validity of the CCI. Qualitative analysis of the focus group discussions indicated that the items with the highest frequencies of participants' comments were related to the concepts of Navigator, Team, Survey, and Communication. Quantitative analysis identified items with a limited response range or high rates of "neutral" responses; accordingly, those items were removed. The final CCI survey is a 29 item, multiple-choice questionnaire with excellent reliability, Cronbach's ??=?.922. CONCLUSIONS:We developed a novel, patient-centered tool with excellent psychometric properties that can be utilized across varied practice settings to assess patients' perception of cancer care coordination. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Not required; retrospectively registered ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03594006 20 July 2018.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In the new media age, the public searches for information both online and offline. Many studies have examined how the public reads and understands this information but very few investigate how people assess the quality of journalistic articles as opposed to information generated by health professionals. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to examine how public health care workers (HCWs) and the general public seek, read, and understand health information and to investigate the criteria by which they assess the quality of journalistic articles. METHODS:A Web-based nonprobability sampling questionnaire survey was distributed to Israeli HCWs and members of the public via 3 social media outlets: Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram. A total of 979 respondents participated in the online survey via the Qualtrics XM platform. RESULTS:The findings indicate that HCWs find academic articles more reliable than do members of the general public (44.4% and 28.4%, respectively, P<.001). Within each group, we found disparities between the places where people search for information and the sources they consider reliable. HCWs consider academic articles to be the most reliable, yet these are not their main information sources. In addition, HCWs often use social networks to search for information (18.2%, P<.001), despite considering them very unreliable (only 2.2% found them reliable, P<.001). The same paradoxes were found among the general public, where 37.5% (P<.001) seek information via social networks yet only 8.4% (P<.001) find them reliable. Out of 6 quality criteria, 4 were important both to HCWs and to the general public. CONCLUSIONS:In the new media age where information is accessible to all, the quality of articles about health is of critical importance. It is important that the criteria examined in this research become the norm in health writing for all stakeholders who write about health, whether they are professional journalists or citizen journalists writing in the new media.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough the electronic health record system adoption rate has reached 96% in the United States, implementation and usage of health information exchange (HIE) is still lagging behind. Blockchain has come into the spotlight as a technology to solve this problem. However, there have been no studies assessing the perspectives of different stakeholders regarding blockchain-based patient-centered HIE.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to analyze the awareness among patients, health care professionals, and information technology developers toward blockchain-based HIE, and compare their different perspectives related to the platform using a qualitative research methodology.MethodsIn this qualitative study, we applied grounded theory and the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in the Health Service (PARiHS) framework. We interviewed 7 patients, 7 physicians, and 7 developers, for a total of 21 interviewees.ResultsRegarding the leakage of health information, the patient group did not have concerns in contrast to the physician and developer groups. Physicians were particularly concerned about the fact that errors in the data cannot be easily fixed due to the nature of blockchain technology. Patients were not against the idea of providing information for clinical trials or research institutions. They wished to be provided with the results of clinical research rather than being compensated for providing data. The developers emphasized that blockchain must be technically mature before it can be applied to the health care scene, and standards of medical information to be exchanged must first be established.ConclusionsThe three groups' perceptions of blockchain were generally positive about the idea of patients having the control of sharing their own health information. However, they were skeptical about the cooperation among various institutions and implementation for data standardization in the establishment process, in addition to how the service will be employed in practice. Taking these factors into consideration during planning, development, and operation of a platform will contribute to establishing practical treatment plans and tracking in a more convenient manner for both patients and physicians. Furthermore, it will help expand the related research and health management industry based on blockchain.

Dataset Information

Toward an Objective Assessment of Implementation Processes for Innovations in Health Care: Psychometric Evaluation of the Normalization Measure Development (NoMAD) Questionnaire Among Mental Health Care Professionals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets