Improving Clarity and Interpretability of Items in a Bilingual Index of Propensity to Integrate Research Evidence Into Clinical Decision-Making in Rehabilitation
Jacqueline Roberge-Dao, Nancy Mayo, Annie Rochette, Keiko Shikako, Aliki Thomas
{"title":"Improving Clarity and Interpretability of Items in a Bilingual Index of Propensity to Integrate Research Evidence Into Clinical Decision-Making in Rehabilitation","authors":"Jacqueline Roberge-Dao, Nancy Mayo, Annie Rochette, Keiko Shikako, Aliki Thomas","doi":"10.1111/jep.70196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Rationale</h3>\n \n <p>Clear, interpretable measures that account for linguistic differences are critical to accurately assess rehabilitation clinicians' propensity to integrate research evidence into clinical decision-making.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims and Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To contribute evidence for the clarity and interpretability of a new five-item bilingual multidimensional index of a rehabilitation clinician's propensity to integrate research evidence into clinical decision-making.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This study was conducted in three sequential steps: (1) We conducted a focus group with occupational therapists, physical therapists, and researchers to review the items and response options for clarity, consistency, and interval properties and agree on equivalency in English and French. (2) We conducted cognitive interviews whereby clinicians elaborated on their interpretation of the item, comprehensibility of items, and appropriateness of response options. Accepted modifications were integrated and tested with subsequent participants. (3) We conducted an online survey to validate the English and French equivalency of response options on a 0–100 scale.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>During the qualitative revision process (one focus group with seven participants followed by 27 interviews), the index was revised 12 times with substantial modifications to the <i>use of research evidence</i> and <i>attitudes</i> items.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This study increases the clinical relevance and reduces measurement error of this brief index which can inform on individual or organizational factors influencing a clinician's propensity of integrating research evidence into decision-making and ultimately improve rehabilitation outcomes.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70196","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70196","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Rationale
Clear, interpretable measures that account for linguistic differences are critical to accurately assess rehabilitation clinicians' propensity to integrate research evidence into clinical decision-making.
Aims and Objectives
To contribute evidence for the clarity and interpretability of a new five-item bilingual multidimensional index of a rehabilitation clinician's propensity to integrate research evidence into clinical decision-making.
Methods
This study was conducted in three sequential steps: (1) We conducted a focus group with occupational therapists, physical therapists, and researchers to review the items and response options for clarity, consistency, and interval properties and agree on equivalency in English and French. (2) We conducted cognitive interviews whereby clinicians elaborated on their interpretation of the item, comprehensibility of items, and appropriateness of response options. Accepted modifications were integrated and tested with subsequent participants. (3) We conducted an online survey to validate the English and French equivalency of response options on a 0–100 scale.
Results
During the qualitative revision process (one focus group with seven participants followed by 27 interviews), the index was revised 12 times with substantial modifications to the use of research evidence and attitudes items.
Conclusion
This study increases the clinical relevance and reduces measurement error of this brief index which can inform on individual or organizational factors influencing a clinician's propensity of integrating research evidence into decision-making and ultimately improve rehabilitation outcomes.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.