Acceptability measures for evaluating smoking cessation interventions among individuals with diabetes

IF 2.2 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Joseph Grech , Ian James Norman , Roberta Sammut
{"title":"Acceptability measures for evaluating smoking cessation interventions among individuals with diabetes","authors":"Joseph Grech ,&nbsp;Ian James Norman ,&nbsp;Roberta Sammut","doi":"10.1016/j.puhip.2024.100487","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The literature indicates that individuals with diabetes do not easily adopt smoking cessation interventions. Given that the success of such interventions depends on patient involvement and attitudes, assessing intervention acceptability, including patient satisfaction and perceived usefulness, is crucial before implementing a smoking cessation intervention. This paper reports the preliminary validation of the satisfaction and perceived usefulness questionnaires for evaluating smoking cessation interventions among individuals with diabetes.</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>Validity study.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The satisfaction questionnaire contained eight statements while the perceived usefulness questionnaire had fourteen; both rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Content validation involved five tobacco cessation facilitators rating item relevance using a 4-point ordinal rating scale, suggesting improvements. The questionnaires were also translated into Maltese for local use and assessed for translation validity using a similar scale. Unanimous agreement among experts was required for item relevance and equivalence. Thirty-four individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, attending a diabetes-specific smoking cessation intervention, received either the Maltese or English versions of the questionnaires. Internal consistency was measured using Cronbach's alpha.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>After two rounds of content validation, the experts unanimously agreed on item relevance and conceptual equivalence. Fifteen and sixteen participants completed the Maltese and English versions of the questionnaires, respectively. Both questionnaires’ versions were found to have a high internal consistency (&gt;0.8).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>These findings provide the initial validation of these instruments for assessing the acceptability of smoking cessation interventions among individuals with diabetes. Further validation in different settings using a larger sample is suggested.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34141,"journal":{"name":"Public Health in Practice","volume":"7 ","pages":"Article 100487"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666535224000247/pdfft?md5=608c3e03a847e5f60fa5bca8712a6634&pid=1-s2.0-S2666535224000247-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health in Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666535224000247","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The literature indicates that individuals with diabetes do not easily adopt smoking cessation interventions. Given that the success of such interventions depends on patient involvement and attitudes, assessing intervention acceptability, including patient satisfaction and perceived usefulness, is crucial before implementing a smoking cessation intervention. This paper reports the preliminary validation of the satisfaction and perceived usefulness questionnaires for evaluating smoking cessation interventions among individuals with diabetes.

Study design

Validity study.

Methods

The satisfaction questionnaire contained eight statements while the perceived usefulness questionnaire had fourteen; both rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Content validation involved five tobacco cessation facilitators rating item relevance using a 4-point ordinal rating scale, suggesting improvements. The questionnaires were also translated into Maltese for local use and assessed for translation validity using a similar scale. Unanimous agreement among experts was required for item relevance and equivalence. Thirty-four individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, attending a diabetes-specific smoking cessation intervention, received either the Maltese or English versions of the questionnaires. Internal consistency was measured using Cronbach's alpha.

Results

After two rounds of content validation, the experts unanimously agreed on item relevance and conceptual equivalence. Fifteen and sixteen participants completed the Maltese and English versions of the questionnaires, respectively. Both questionnaires’ versions were found to have a high internal consistency (>0.8).

Conclusions

These findings provide the initial validation of these instruments for assessing the acceptability of smoking cessation interventions among individuals with diabetes. Further validation in different settings using a larger sample is suggested.

评估糖尿病患者戒烟干预措施的可接受性测量方法
背景文献表明,糖尿病患者并不容易接受戒烟干预。鉴于此类干预措施的成功与否取决于患者的参与和态度,因此在实施戒烟干预措施之前,评估干预措施的可接受性(包括患者满意度和感知有用性)至关重要。本文报告了用于评估糖尿病患者戒烟干预的满意度和感知有用性问卷的初步验证情况。研究设计有效性研究方法满意度问卷包含8个陈述,感知有用性问卷包含14个陈述;均采用5点李克特量表评分。内容验证包括五位戒烟促进者使用 4 点顺序评分法对项目相关性进行评分,并提出改进建议。问卷还被翻译成马耳他语供当地使用,并使用类似的量表对翻译的有效性进行评估。项目相关性和等效性要求专家一致同意。34 名 1 型或 2 型糖尿病患者参加了针对糖尿病的戒烟干预活动,并接受了马耳他语或英语版本的问卷调查。结果经过两轮内容验证后,专家们一致同意项目相关性和概念等效性。分别有 15 和 16 名参与者完成了马耳他语和英语版本的问卷。结论这些研究结果为评估糖尿病患者对戒烟干预的接受程度提供了初步验证。建议在不同的环境中使用更大的样本进行进一步验证。
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
Public Health in Practice
Public Health in Practice Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
117
审稿时长
71 days
×
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