精神病早期干预服务忠实性评估问卷的初步评估。

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Miriam Kinkaid, Rebecca Fuhrer, Stephen McGowan, Ashok Malla
{"title":"精神病早期干预服务忠实性评估问卷的初步评估。","authors":"Miriam Kinkaid, Rebecca Fuhrer, Stephen McGowan, Ashok Malla","doi":"10.1007/s00127-024-02703-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Fast, easy, and cost-effective methods are needed for fidelity assessment, quality improvement initiatives, and population-based studies in Early Intervention for Psychosis (EIP) services. Having an online questionnaire assessing the fidelity of EIP services, completed by staff self-reports, and having evidence of reliability and validity, could fill that gap. We assess the reliability and validity of the Early Intervention for Psychosis Services Fidelity Questionnaire (EIPS-FQ), developed in Part I of this set of papers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A convenience sample of 10 EIP teams in England was used. Two staff members completed online questionnaires assessing recent and past fidelity. An external rater completed the same questionnaire for the two time periods, using a random sample of patient medical records, program documentation, and interviews with staff. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess inter-rater reliability. Validity was assessed using Bland-Altman plots, absolute mean differences, and the ICC.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The fidelity score measuring recent fidelity ranged from 54.2 to 82.7, out of a possible 100. The ICC assessing reliability of the fidelity score was 0.40 (95% CI: 0.0-0.81). The ICCs for the fidelity sub-category scores ranged from 0 to 0.76. Two sub-categories, comprehensive assessments and family involvement and intervention, had low ICCs, regardless of period examined.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This first attempt at validating the EIPS-FQ has demonstrated that the reliability of the EIPS-FQ is moderate/low, and therefore requires modification prior to use. The next iteration of the fidelity questionnaire will clarify or remove items which had very low reliability and add evidence-based components not identified in the Delphi exercise.</p>","PeriodicalId":49510,"journal":{"name":"Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"55-65"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preliminary evaluation of a questionnaire for assessing fidelity of early intervention for psychosis services.\",\"authors\":\"Miriam Kinkaid, Rebecca Fuhrer, Stephen McGowan, Ashok Malla\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00127-024-02703-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Fast, easy, and cost-effective methods are needed for fidelity assessment, quality improvement initiatives, and population-based studies in Early Intervention for Psychosis (EIP) services. Having an online questionnaire assessing the fidelity of EIP services, completed by staff self-reports, and having evidence of reliability and validity, could fill that gap. We assess the reliability and validity of the Early Intervention for Psychosis Services Fidelity Questionnaire (EIPS-FQ), developed in Part I of this set of papers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A convenience sample of 10 EIP teams in England was used. Two staff members completed online questionnaires assessing recent and past fidelity. An external rater completed the same questionnaire for the two time periods, using a random sample of patient medical records, program documentation, and interviews with staff. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess inter-rater reliability. Validity was assessed using Bland-Altman plots, absolute mean differences, and the ICC.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The fidelity score measuring recent fidelity ranged from 54.2 to 82.7, out of a possible 100. The ICC assessing reliability of the fidelity score was 0.40 (95% CI: 0.0-0.81). The ICCs for the fidelity sub-category scores ranged from 0 to 0.76. Two sub-categories, comprehensive assessments and family involvement and intervention, had low ICCs, regardless of period examined.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This first attempt at validating the EIPS-FQ has demonstrated that the reliability of the EIPS-FQ is moderate/low, and therefore requires modification prior to use. The next iteration of the fidelity questionnaire will clarify or remove items which had very low reliability and add evidence-based components not identified in the Delphi exercise.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49510,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"55-65\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-024-02703-4\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-024-02703-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:我们需要快速、简便、经济高效的方法来对精神病早期干预(EIP)服务进行忠诚度评估、质量改进计划和基于人群的研究。如果能有一份在线问卷来评估 EIP 服务的忠实度,由工作人员自我报告完成,并有可靠和有效的证据,就能填补这一空白。我们对本论文集第一部分中开发的 "思觉失调早期干预服务忠诚度问卷"(EIPS-FQ)的可靠性和有效性进行了评估:方法:对英格兰的 10 个 EIP 团队进行了方便抽样调查。两名工作人员填写了在线问卷,评估最近和过去的忠实度。一名外部评定者通过随机抽样患者病历、项目文件和对员工的访谈,完成了两个时间段的相同问卷。计算类内相关系数 (ICC) 来评估评分者之间的可靠性。使用Bland-Altman图、绝对平均差和ICC评估有效性:在满分 100 分的情况下,衡量近期忠实度的得分介于 54.2 分至 82.7 分之间。评估忠实度得分可靠性的 ICC 为 0.40(95% CI:0.0-0.81)。忠实度子类别得分的 ICC 在 0 到 0.76 之间。综合评估和家庭参与及干预这两个子类别的 ICC 值较低,与考察的时期无关:对 EIPS-FQ 的首次验证表明,EIPS-FQ 的可靠性为中等/较低,因此在使用前需要进行修改。保真度调查表的下一次迭代将澄清或删除保真度很低的项目,并增加德尔菲活动中没有确定的循证内容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Preliminary evaluation of a questionnaire for assessing fidelity of early intervention for psychosis services.

Preliminary evaluation of a questionnaire for assessing fidelity of early intervention for psychosis services.

Purpose: Fast, easy, and cost-effective methods are needed for fidelity assessment, quality improvement initiatives, and population-based studies in Early Intervention for Psychosis (EIP) services. Having an online questionnaire assessing the fidelity of EIP services, completed by staff self-reports, and having evidence of reliability and validity, could fill that gap. We assess the reliability and validity of the Early Intervention for Psychosis Services Fidelity Questionnaire (EIPS-FQ), developed in Part I of this set of papers.

Methods: A convenience sample of 10 EIP teams in England was used. Two staff members completed online questionnaires assessing recent and past fidelity. An external rater completed the same questionnaire for the two time periods, using a random sample of patient medical records, program documentation, and interviews with staff. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess inter-rater reliability. Validity was assessed using Bland-Altman plots, absolute mean differences, and the ICC.

Results: The fidelity score measuring recent fidelity ranged from 54.2 to 82.7, out of a possible 100. The ICC assessing reliability of the fidelity score was 0.40 (95% CI: 0.0-0.81). The ICCs for the fidelity sub-category scores ranged from 0 to 0.76. Two sub-categories, comprehensive assessments and family involvement and intervention, had low ICCs, regardless of period examined.

Conclusions: This first attempt at validating the EIPS-FQ has demonstrated that the reliability of the EIPS-FQ is moderate/low, and therefore requires modification prior to use. The next iteration of the fidelity questionnaire will clarify or remove items which had very low reliability and add evidence-based components not identified in the Delphi exercise.

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
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
2.30%
发文量
184
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology is intended to provide a medium for the prompt publication of scientific contributions concerned with all aspects of the epidemiology of psychiatric disorders - social, biological and genetic. In addition, the journal has a particular focus on the effects of social conditions upon behaviour and the relationship between psychiatric disorders and the social environment. Contributions may be of a clinical nature provided they relate to social issues, or they may deal with specialised investigations in the fields of social psychology, sociology, anthropology, epidemiology, health service research, health economies or public mental health. We will publish papers on cross-cultural and trans-cultural themes. We do not publish case studies or small case series. While we will publish studies of reliability and validity of new instruments of interest to our readership, we will not publish articles reporting on the performance of established instruments in translation. Both original work and review articles may be submitted.
×
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