Développement d’un outil d’évaluation de l’anxiété de performance en obstétrique

IF 0.6 4区 医学 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Dio Andriamanjay , Pierre Castel , Claude D’Ercole , Florence Bretelle , Aubert Agostini , Julie Berbis , Julie Blanc
{"title":"Développement d’un outil d’évaluation de l’anxiété de performance en obstétrique","authors":"Dio Andriamanjay ,&nbsp;Pierre Castel ,&nbsp;Claude D’Ercole ,&nbsp;Florence Bretelle ,&nbsp;Aubert Agostini ,&nbsp;Julie Berbis ,&nbsp;Julie Blanc","doi":"10.1016/j.gofs.2024.01.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Developing a measuring tool for physician's performance anxiety during obstetrical procedures, as a self-administered questionnaire.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We used the Delphi method. First, we did a literature review to identify the items to submit for the first round. A panel of experts was asked to rate the relevance of items from one to six. For the first round of Delphi, items were retained if more than 70% of respondents assigned a five or six rating. Items were excluded if more than 70% of respondents assigned a one or two rating. All the other items, plus those suggested by the panel, were submitted to a second round of Delphi. The same item selection conditions were applied to the second round.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The overall response rate to the Delphi was 79% (19 respondents). At the end of the first round, 14 items were consensually relevant, no item was consensually irrelevant. For the second round, the 18 items that did not find consensus and seven new items suggested by the experts in the first round were submitted. At the end of the second round, nine items were retained by consensus as relevant.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This study defined by consensus 23 items for a self-questionnaire to measure specific performance anxiety in obstetrics divided into five dimensions: perceived stress, assessment of the risk of complications, medico-legal risk, impact of the healthcare team and peers, self-confidence and decision-making confidence. We intend to validate this tool in real population.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56056,"journal":{"name":"Gynecologie Obstetrique Fertilite & Senologie","volume":"52 6","pages":"Pages 384-390"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468718924000114/pdfft?md5=898766396e723d182e3fff741c0c498a&pid=1-s2.0-S2468718924000114-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gynecologie Obstetrique Fertilite & Senologie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468718924000114","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Developing a measuring tool for physician's performance anxiety during obstetrical procedures, as a self-administered questionnaire.

Methods

We used the Delphi method. First, we did a literature review to identify the items to submit for the first round. A panel of experts was asked to rate the relevance of items from one to six. For the first round of Delphi, items were retained if more than 70% of respondents assigned a five or six rating. Items were excluded if more than 70% of respondents assigned a one or two rating. All the other items, plus those suggested by the panel, were submitted to a second round of Delphi. The same item selection conditions were applied to the second round.

Results

The overall response rate to the Delphi was 79% (19 respondents). At the end of the first round, 14 items were consensually relevant, no item was consensually irrelevant. For the second round, the 18 items that did not find consensus and seven new items suggested by the experts in the first round were submitted. At the end of the second round, nine items were retained by consensus as relevant.

Conclusion

This study defined by consensus 23 items for a self-questionnaire to measure specific performance anxiety in obstetrics divided into five dimensions: perceived stress, assessment of the risk of complications, medico-legal risk, impact of the healthcare team and peers, self-confidence and decision-making confidence. We intend to validate this tool in real population.

[开发产科绩效焦虑测量工具]。
目的开发一种测量产科过程中医生工作焦虑的工具,作为一种自填式问卷:我们采用了德尔菲法。首先,我们进行了文献综述,以确定第一轮提交的项目。然后请专家小组对项目的相关性进行评分,评分标准为一至六分。在第一轮德尔菲法中,如果超过 70% 的受访者给予 5 分或 6 分的评分,则保留该项目。如果超过 70% 的受访者给项目打 1 分或 2 分,则排除该项目。所有其他项目,加上小组建议的项目,都提交给第二轮德尔菲。第二轮的项目选择条件与第一轮相同:德尔菲法的总回复率为 79%(19 位受访者)。第一轮结束时,14 个项目一致认为相关,没有项目一致认为不相关。在第二轮中,提交了第一轮中未达成共识的 18 个项目和专家建议的 7 个新项目。第二轮结束时,9 个项目被一致认为是相关的:本研究以协商一致的方式确定了 23 个项目,用于测量产科特定绩效焦虑的自我问卷,分为五个维度:感知压力、并发症风险评估、医疗法律风险、医护团队和同行的影响、自信心和决策信心。我们打算在实际人群中验证这一工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Gynecologie Obstetrique Fertilite & Senologie
Gynecologie Obstetrique Fertilite & Senologie Medicine-Obstetrics and Gynecology
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
170
期刊介绍: Gynécologie Obstétrique Fertilité & Sénologie est un mensuel scientifique d''information et de formation destiné aux gynécologues, aux obstétriciens, aux sénologues et aux biologistes de la reproduction. La revue, dans ses éditoriaux, articles originaux, mises au point, lettres à la rédaction et autres rubriques, donne une information actualisée ayant trait à l''obstétrique et à la gynécologie et aux différentes spécialités développées à partir de ces deux pôles : médecine de la reproduction, médecine maternelle et fœtale, périnatalité, endocrinologie, chirurgie gynécologique, cancérologie pelvienne, sénologie, sexualité, psychosomatique…
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信