Development and validation of an indigenous questionnaire for assessing clinician's knowledge towards transfusion medicine and bedside transfusion practices.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEMATOLOGY
Anubhav Gupta, Hari Krishan Dhawan, Romesh Jain, Ratti Ram Sharma, Vipin Kaushal, Amarjeet Singh, Neelam Marwaha
{"title":"Development and validation of an indigenous questionnaire for assessing clinician's knowledge towards transfusion medicine and bedside transfusion practices.","authors":"Anubhav Gupta, Hari Krishan Dhawan, Romesh Jain, Ratti Ram Sharma, Vipin Kaushal, Amarjeet Singh, Neelam Marwaha","doi":"10.1111/tme.13130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Due to the non-availability of formal training during residency for clinicians in transfusion medicine, there is a prevalent knowledge gap for transfusion practices, which leads to increased patient risks and elevated healthcare costs. There is no indigenous questionnaire available, which could be used for knowledge assessment. This study aims to develop and validate an Indigenous questionnaire to assess clinicians' knowledge of transfusion medicine and bedside transfusion practices.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The questionnaire was designed using a nominal group technique involving subject experts, considering the type of information required, themes, appropriate wording, layout, and presentation. The questionnaire consisted of 25 knowledge-based questions and 4 general questions. Piloting of the questionnaire was done to check for feasibility, validation, and reliability. Content validity was assessed by six experts using the Content Validity Index (CVI). Reliability was assessed using test-retest and split-half methods, with a sample of 56 participants. Cronbach's alpha and Kappa statistics were used to measure internal consistency and agreement, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The questionnaire displayed acceptable feasibility with a mean difficulty score of 6.93 on a scale of 1-10, with test-retest responses showing near-perfect agreement (kappa value 0.8-0.99). All experts gave more than 70% agreement on the relevance of content, with a mean CVI of 85%. Test-retest reliability showed near-perfect agreement (Kappa 0.8-0.99, p = 0.008) and good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.806). The split-half method yielded a Cronbach's α of 0.89 and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.88 (95% CI 0.57, 0.97, p = 0.001) Construct validity was confirmed through factor analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The developed indigenous questionnaire is a reliable and valid tool for assessing the knowledge of clinicians towards transfusion medicine and bedside transfusion practices. The detailed, methodical strategy used to prepare and validate the questionnaire ensures its applicability and relevance in various clinical settings and can be easily adopted by others intending to prepare similar questionnaires. The questionnaire is available with the author and, on demand, may be provided for knowledge assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":23306,"journal":{"name":"Transfusion Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transfusion Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/tme.13130","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Due to the non-availability of formal training during residency for clinicians in transfusion medicine, there is a prevalent knowledge gap for transfusion practices, which leads to increased patient risks and elevated healthcare costs. There is no indigenous questionnaire available, which could be used for knowledge assessment. This study aims to develop and validate an Indigenous questionnaire to assess clinicians' knowledge of transfusion medicine and bedside transfusion practices.

Materials and methods: The questionnaire was designed using a nominal group technique involving subject experts, considering the type of information required, themes, appropriate wording, layout, and presentation. The questionnaire consisted of 25 knowledge-based questions and 4 general questions. Piloting of the questionnaire was done to check for feasibility, validation, and reliability. Content validity was assessed by six experts using the Content Validity Index (CVI). Reliability was assessed using test-retest and split-half methods, with a sample of 56 participants. Cronbach's alpha and Kappa statistics were used to measure internal consistency and agreement, respectively.

Results: The questionnaire displayed acceptable feasibility with a mean difficulty score of 6.93 on a scale of 1-10, with test-retest responses showing near-perfect agreement (kappa value 0.8-0.99). All experts gave more than 70% agreement on the relevance of content, with a mean CVI of 85%. Test-retest reliability showed near-perfect agreement (Kappa 0.8-0.99, p = 0.008) and good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.806). The split-half method yielded a Cronbach's α of 0.89 and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.88 (95% CI 0.57, 0.97, p = 0.001) Construct validity was confirmed through factor analysis.

Conclusion: The developed indigenous questionnaire is a reliable and valid tool for assessing the knowledge of clinicians towards transfusion medicine and bedside transfusion practices. The detailed, methodical strategy used to prepare and validate the questionnaire ensures its applicability and relevance in various clinical settings and can be easily adopted by others intending to prepare similar questionnaires. The questionnaire is available with the author and, on demand, may be provided for knowledge assessment.

开发和验证本地问卷评估临床医生对输血医学和床边输血实践的知识。
导读:由于住院医师在输血医学方面没有得到正式的培训,在输血实践方面存在普遍的知识差距,这导致患者风险增加和医疗成本上升。没有可用于知识评估的土著问题单。本研究的目的是开发和验证一个土著调查问卷,以评估临床医生对输血医学和床边输血实践的知识。材料和方法:考虑到所需信息的类型、主题、适当的措辞、布局和呈现,问卷设计采用了一种有主题专家参与的名义小组技术。问卷由25个知识性问题和4个一般性问题组成。对问卷进行试点,以检查其可行性、有效性和可靠性。内容效度由6位专家使用内容效度指数(CVI)进行评估。可靠性评估采用测试-重测试和对半法,与56名参与者的样本。Cronbach’s alpha和Kappa统计分别用于测量内部一致性和一致性。结果:问卷具有可接受的可行性,在1-10的范围内,问卷的平均难度得分为6.93,重测结果接近完美一致(kappa值为0.8-0.99)。所有专家都对内容的相关性给出了超过70%的同意,平均CVI为85%。重测信度显示接近完美的一致性(Kappa 0.8 ~ 0.99, p = 0.008)和良好的内部一致性(Cronbach’s α = 0.806)。二分法的Cronbach’s α为0.89,类内相关系数为0.88 (95% CI 0.57, 0.97, p = 0.001)。结论:开发的本土问卷是评估临床医生对输血医学和床边输血实践知识的可靠和有效的工具。用于准备和验证问卷的详细、有条不紊的策略确保了其在各种临床环境中的适用性和相关性,并且可以很容易地被打算准备类似问卷的其他人采用。作者可获得调查问卷,并可根据需要提供知识评估。
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
Transfusion Medicine
Transfusion Medicine 医学-血液学
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
96
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Transfusion Medicine publishes articles on transfusion medicine in its widest context, including blood transfusion practice (blood procurement, pharmaceutical, clinical, scientific, computing and documentary aspects), immunohaematology, immunogenetics, histocompatibility, medico-legal applications, and related molecular biology and biotechnology. In addition to original articles, which may include brief communications and case reports, the journal contains a regular educational section (based on invited reviews and state-of-the-art reports), technical section (including quality assurance and current practice guidelines), leading articles, letters to the editor, occasional historical articles and signed book reviews. Some lectures from Society meetings that are likely to be of general interest to readers of the Journal may be published at the discretion of the Editor and subject to the availability of space in the 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