高、低文化水平患者在物理治疗实践中填写患者特殊投诉问卷存在问题:一项定性研究

M. Welbie, H. Wittink, M. Westerman, W. Devillé
{"title":"高、低文化水平患者在物理治疗实践中填写患者特殊投诉问卷存在问题:一项定性研究","authors":"M. Welbie, H. Wittink, M. Westerman, W. Devillé","doi":"10.5750/IJPCM.V6I1.566","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective : to get insight into the perspectives of physical therapy patients with different levels of health literacy on ‘ease of use’ and ‘usefulness’ of the most frequently used questionnaire in Dutch physical therapy: the Patient Specific-Complaint questionnaire (PSC). Methods : Cognitive interviews were conducted with twenty-five Dutch and twenty-five Turkish physical therapy patients with variable health literacy levels after they completed the Dutch PSC. A thematic content analysis approach was used to analyze the data. Results: Nineteen respondents did not complete the PSC fully and ten were not able to complete the questionnaire at all. All respondents but one experienced difficulties completing the PSC. Most problems were experienced in understanding and interpreting the instructions and questions. Low educated and low health literate respondents experienced more difficulties than high educated and adequate health literate respondents did. Due to these difficulties in twenty-four cases the PSC generated other information than was intended by its developers. Almost half of the respondents were positive about the usefulness of the PSC in relation to their treatment process. Conclusions : Completing questionnaires is more difficult for patients than care providers might realize. The results of this study confirm the necessity to collaborate with patients in all stages of questionnaire development. The ease of use of questionnaires should be tested and if necessary improved. To stimulate questionnaire developers to take usability and face and content validity into account, it is recommended to incorporate assessment of these criteria in quality evaluation tools like the COSMIN checklist.","PeriodicalId":402902,"journal":{"name":"the International Journal of Person-Centered Medicine","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Completing the Patient Specific-Complaint Questionnaire in Physical Therapy Practice is Problematic for High and Low Literate Patients: A Qualitative Study\",\"authors\":\"M. Welbie, H. Wittink, M. Westerman, W. Devillé\",\"doi\":\"10.5750/IJPCM.V6I1.566\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective : to get insight into the perspectives of physical therapy patients with different levels of health literacy on ‘ease of use’ and ‘usefulness’ of the most frequently used questionnaire in Dutch physical therapy: the Patient Specific-Complaint questionnaire (PSC). Methods : Cognitive interviews were conducted with twenty-five Dutch and twenty-five Turkish physical therapy patients with variable health literacy levels after they completed the Dutch PSC. A thematic content analysis approach was used to analyze the data. Results: Nineteen respondents did not complete the PSC fully and ten were not able to complete the questionnaire at all. All respondents but one experienced difficulties completing the PSC. Most problems were experienced in understanding and interpreting the instructions and questions. Low educated and low health literate respondents experienced more difficulties than high educated and adequate health literate respondents did. Due to these difficulties in twenty-four cases the PSC generated other information than was intended by its developers. Almost half of the respondents were positive about the usefulness of the PSC in relation to their treatment process. Conclusions : Completing questionnaires is more difficult for patients than care providers might realize. The results of this study confirm the necessity to collaborate with patients in all stages of questionnaire development. The ease of use of questionnaires should be tested and if necessary improved. To stimulate questionnaire developers to take usability and face and content validity into account, it is recommended to incorporate assessment of these criteria in quality evaluation tools like the COSMIN checklist.\",\"PeriodicalId\":402902,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"the International Journal of Person-Centered Medicine\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-04-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"the International Journal of Person-Centered Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5750/IJPCM.V6I1.566\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"the International Journal of Person-Centered Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5750/IJPCM.V6I1.566","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的:了解不同健康素养水平的物理治疗患者对荷兰物理治疗中最常用的问卷:患者特殊投诉问卷(PSC)的“易用性”和“有用性”的看法。方法:对25名不同健康素养水平的荷兰和土耳其物理治疗患者在完成荷兰PSC后进行认知访谈。采用主题内容分析法对数据进行分析。结果:19名受访者未完整完成PSC, 10名受访者根本无法完成问卷。除了一位受访者外,所有受访者都在完成PSC方面遇到了困难。大多数问题都是在理解和解释说明和问题时遇到的。受教育程度低和卫生知识水平低的答复者比受教育程度高和卫生知识充分的答复者遇到更多的困难。由于这些困难,在24个案例中,PSC产生了与开发者预期不同的信息。几乎一半的受访者对PSC对其治疗过程的有用性持积极态度。结论:完成问卷对患者来说比医护人员可能意识到的要困难得多。本研究的结果证实了在问卷开发的各个阶段与患者合作的必要性。应测试调查表的易用性,并在必要时加以改进。为了激励问卷开发者考虑可用性、外观和内容有效性,建议将这些标准的评估纳入质量评估工具,如COSMIN检查表。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Completing the Patient Specific-Complaint Questionnaire in Physical Therapy Practice is Problematic for High and Low Literate Patients: A Qualitative Study
Objective : to get insight into the perspectives of physical therapy patients with different levels of health literacy on ‘ease of use’ and ‘usefulness’ of the most frequently used questionnaire in Dutch physical therapy: the Patient Specific-Complaint questionnaire (PSC). Methods : Cognitive interviews were conducted with twenty-five Dutch and twenty-five Turkish physical therapy patients with variable health literacy levels after they completed the Dutch PSC. A thematic content analysis approach was used to analyze the data. Results: Nineteen respondents did not complete the PSC fully and ten were not able to complete the questionnaire at all. All respondents but one experienced difficulties completing the PSC. Most problems were experienced in understanding and interpreting the instructions and questions. Low educated and low health literate respondents experienced more difficulties than high educated and adequate health literate respondents did. Due to these difficulties in twenty-four cases the PSC generated other information than was intended by its developers. Almost half of the respondents were positive about the usefulness of the PSC in relation to their treatment process. Conclusions : Completing questionnaires is more difficult for patients than care providers might realize. The results of this study confirm the necessity to collaborate with patients in all stages of questionnaire development. The ease of use of questionnaires should be tested and if necessary improved. To stimulate questionnaire developers to take usability and face and content validity into account, it is recommended to incorporate assessment of these criteria in quality evaluation tools like the COSMIN checklist.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信