Development and Validation of Objective and Subjective Osteoporosis Knowledge Instruments Among Chinese Orthopaedic Surgeons.

IF 4.4 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Jian Mo, Ying Mo, Jiale He, Bu Yang, Xieyuan Jiang, Lei He, Shuai Lu, Wenbin Wu, Mao Pang, Feng Feng, Peigen Xie, Shunwu Fan, Limin Rong
{"title":"Development and Validation of Objective and Subjective Osteoporosis Knowledge Instruments Among Chinese Orthopaedic Surgeons.","authors":"Jian Mo, Ying Mo, Jiale He, Bu Yang, Xieyuan Jiang, Lei He, Shuai Lu, Wenbin Wu, Mao Pang, Feng Feng, Peigen Xie, Shunwu Fan, Limin Rong","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.23.01136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinicians must be knowledgeable about osteoporosis so that they can convey information regarding the prevention of fragility fractures to their patients. The purposes of this study were to develop objective and subjective knowledge instruments for osteoporosis and fragility fractures and then test their reliability and validity among Chinese orthopaedic surgeons.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 2-round procedure was used to develop the objective and subjective knowledge instruments. A cross-sectional online survey was distributed to 293 orthopaedic surgeons; 189 surgeons returned the questionnaires. We examined internal consistency, test-retest reliability, criterion validity, and discriminant validity; we also compared the subjective knowledge level with the objective knowledge level among surgeons.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our results showed that the Subjective Knowledge Scale (SKS) regarding Osteoporosis and Fragility Fractures had a high Cronbach alpha coefficient (0.915), and the objective Osteoporosis Knowledge Test for Clinicians (OKTC) had an adequate Kuder-Richardson 20 coefficient (0.64). Item analyses were conducted, and a short version of the OKTC (the OKTC-SF) was developed. The SKS, the OKTC, and the OKTC-SF all showed good test-retest reliability, criterion validity, and discriminant validity. The percentage of surgeons with a high subjective knowledge level was higher than the percentage of surgeons who selected the correct answer for several corresponding questions related to objective knowledge.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The SKS, the OKTC, and the OKTC-SF all demonstrated good reliability and validity. However, the orthopaedic surgeons may have overestimated their knowledge level regarding osteoporosis. Targeted continuing medical education that is based on individual knowledge level is needed to improve the undertreatment of osteoporosis among patients with fragility fractures.</p>","PeriodicalId":15273,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.23.01136","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Clinicians must be knowledgeable about osteoporosis so that they can convey information regarding the prevention of fragility fractures to their patients. The purposes of this study were to develop objective and subjective knowledge instruments for osteoporosis and fragility fractures and then test their reliability and validity among Chinese orthopaedic surgeons.

Methods: A 2-round procedure was used to develop the objective and subjective knowledge instruments. A cross-sectional online survey was distributed to 293 orthopaedic surgeons; 189 surgeons returned the questionnaires. We examined internal consistency, test-retest reliability, criterion validity, and discriminant validity; we also compared the subjective knowledge level with the objective knowledge level among surgeons.

Results: Our results showed that the Subjective Knowledge Scale (SKS) regarding Osteoporosis and Fragility Fractures had a high Cronbach alpha coefficient (0.915), and the objective Osteoporosis Knowledge Test for Clinicians (OKTC) had an adequate Kuder-Richardson 20 coefficient (0.64). Item analyses were conducted, and a short version of the OKTC (the OKTC-SF) was developed. The SKS, the OKTC, and the OKTC-SF all showed good test-retest reliability, criterion validity, and discriminant validity. The percentage of surgeons with a high subjective knowledge level was higher than the percentage of surgeons who selected the correct answer for several corresponding questions related to objective knowledge.

Conclusions: The SKS, the OKTC, and the OKTC-SF all demonstrated good reliability and validity. However, the orthopaedic surgeons may have overestimated their knowledge level regarding osteoporosis. Targeted continuing medical education that is based on individual knowledge level is needed to improve the undertreatment of osteoporosis among patients with fragility fractures.

中国骨科医生骨质疏松症客观和主观知识工具的开发与验证
背景:临床医生必须对骨质疏松症有所了解,这样才能向患者传达预防脆性骨折的信息。本研究的目的是开发骨质疏松症和脆性骨折的主客观知识工具,然后在中国骨科医生中测试其信度和效度:方法:采用两轮程序来开发客观和主观知识工具。向 293 名骨科医生发放了横断面在线调查问卷,189 名医生返回了调查问卷。我们对问卷的内部一致性、重测信度、标准效度和判别效度进行了检验,并将外科医生的主观知识水平与客观知识水平进行了比较:结果表明,骨质疏松症和脆性骨折主观知识量表(SKS)具有较高的 Cronbach alpha 系数(0.915),临床医师骨质疏松症客观知识测试(OKTC)具有适当的 Kuder-Richardson 20 系数(0.64)。进行了项目分析,并开发了 OKTC 的简短版本(OKTC-SF)。SKS、OKTC 和 OKTC-SF 均显示出良好的测试重复可靠性、标准有效性和判别有效性。主观知识水平高的外科医生比例高于在几个与客观知识相关的相应问题上选择正确答案的外科医生比例:结论:SKS、OKTC 和 OKTC-SF 均表现出良好的信度和效度。然而,骨科医生可能高估了他们对骨质疏松症的知识水平。需要根据个人的知识水平开展有针对性的继续医学教育,以改善脆性骨折患者骨质疏松症治疗不足的问题。
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
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
7.50%
发文量
660
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (JBJS) has been the most valued source of information for orthopaedic surgeons and researchers for over 125 years and is the gold standard in peer-reviewed scientific information in the field. A core journal and essential reading for general as well as specialist orthopaedic surgeons worldwide, The Journal publishes evidence-based research to enhance the quality of care for orthopaedic patients. Standards of excellence and high quality are maintained in everything we do, from the science of the content published to the customer service we provide. JBJS is an independent, non-profit journal.
×
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