针对接受急症护理的体弱老年人的患者报告结果测量法(PROM-OPAC):现场测试与验证。

IF 2.4 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
James D van Oppen, Simon P Conroy, Jagruti Lalseta, Nicola Mackintosh, Peter Riley, Vivien Richardson, Jose M Valderas, Timothy J Coats
{"title":"针对接受急症护理的体弱老年人的患者报告结果测量法(PROM-OPAC):现场测试与验证。","authors":"James D van Oppen, Simon P Conroy, Jagruti Lalseta, Nicola Mackintosh, Peter Riley, Vivien Richardson, Jose M Valderas, Timothy J Coats","doi":"10.1186/s41687-024-00796-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Current acute healthcare service metrics are not meaningful for older people living with frailty. Healthcare knowledge, situational security, and physical and psychosocial function are important outcomes typically not collected. The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) could support these assessments. Existing instruments are not comprehensive as they typically consider function, while older people with frailty also value enablement (self-determination and security in health and healthcare). This study field-tested and validated a PROM for older people with frailty receiving acute care (PROM-OPAC) to measure enablement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>People aged 65+ with Clinical Frailty Scale 5-8 were recruited within seventy-two hours of an emergency attendance. Iterations of the novel instrument were administered over three stages: (1) preliminary field-testing for reliability (response distribution and internal consistency) and structure (exploratory factor analysis, EFA); (2) intermediate field-testing of an improved instrument for reliability and structure; (3) final draft validation assessing reliability, structure (confirmatory factor analysis, CFA), and construct validity based on a priori hypotheses. Feasibility was appraised throughout using data completeness and response rates and times.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>241 people participated. Three items of a preliminary seven-item measure had poor response distribution or loading and were accordingly improved. The intermediate instrument had interpretability issues and three items required further improvement. The final eight-item draft had acceptable reliability (Cronbach's alpha: 0.71), structure (two factors for self-determination and security; RMSEA: 0.065; TLI: 0.917; CFI: 0.944), and construct validity (lower scores from respondents waiting longer and requiring admission). Feasibility was promising (response rate 39%; 98% responses complete; median completion time 11 (IQR: 12) minutes).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Administration of the PROM-OPAC appeared feasible and the instrument had acceptable psychometric properties. Further evaluation is required to assess generalisability.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":"8 1","pages":"119"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11484973/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The patient-reported outcome measure for older people living with frailty receiving acute care (PROM-OPAC): field-testing and validation.\",\"authors\":\"James D van Oppen, Simon P Conroy, Jagruti Lalseta, Nicola Mackintosh, Peter Riley, Vivien Richardson, Jose M Valderas, Timothy J Coats\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41687-024-00796-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Current acute healthcare service metrics are not meaningful for older people living with frailty. Healthcare knowledge, situational security, and physical and psychosocial function are important outcomes typically not collected. The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) could support these assessments. Existing instruments are not comprehensive as they typically consider function, while older people with frailty also value enablement (self-determination and security in health and healthcare). This study field-tested and validated a PROM for older people with frailty receiving acute care (PROM-OPAC) to measure enablement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>People aged 65+ with Clinical Frailty Scale 5-8 were recruited within seventy-two hours of an emergency attendance. Iterations of the novel instrument were administered over three stages: (1) preliminary field-testing for reliability (response distribution and internal consistency) and structure (exploratory factor analysis, EFA); (2) intermediate field-testing of an improved instrument for reliability and structure; (3) final draft validation assessing reliability, structure (confirmatory factor analysis, CFA), and construct validity based on a priori hypotheses. Feasibility was appraised throughout using data completeness and response rates and times.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>241 people participated. Three items of a preliminary seven-item measure had poor response distribution or loading and were accordingly improved. The intermediate instrument had interpretability issues and three items required further improvement. The final eight-item draft had acceptable reliability (Cronbach's alpha: 0.71), structure (two factors for self-determination and security; RMSEA: 0.065; TLI: 0.917; CFI: 0.944), and construct validity (lower scores from respondents waiting longer and requiring admission). Feasibility was promising (response rate 39%; 98% responses complete; median completion time 11 (IQR: 12) minutes).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Administration of the PROM-OPAC appeared feasible and the instrument had acceptable psychometric properties. Further evaluation is required to assess generalisability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36660,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"119\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11484973/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-024-00796-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-024-00796-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:目前的急症医疗保健服务指标对患有虚弱症的老年人来说意义不大。医疗保健知识、情景安全以及身体和社会心理功能是通常无法收集到的重要结果。使用患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)可以为这些评估提供支持。现有的工具并不全面,因为它们通常考虑的是功能,而体弱老年人也重视能力(健康和医疗保健方面的自决和安全)。本研究实地测试并验证了针对接受急症护理的体弱老年人的 PROM(PROM-OPAC),以衡量其能力:方法:在急诊就医 72 小时内招募临床虚弱量表为 5-8 的 65 岁以上老年人。新工具的迭代分三个阶段进行:(1) 可靠性(反应分布和内部一致性)和结构(探索性因素分析,EFA)的初步现场测试;(2) 可靠性和结构的改进工具的中期现场测试;(3) 基于先验假设的可靠性、结构(确认性因素分析,CFA)和构建有效性的最终验证草案。在整个过程中,利用数据完整性、回复率和时间对可行性进行了评估。在初步的七项目测量中,有三个项目的反应分布或负荷不佳,因此进行了改进。中间工具存在可解释性问题,有三个项目需要进一步改进。最终的八项目草案在信度(Cronbach's alpha:0.71)、结构(自我决定和安全感两个因子;RMSEA:0.065;TLI:0.917;CFI:0.944)和建构性方面都是可以接受的:0.944)和结构效度(等待时间较长和需要入院的受访者得分较低)。可行性良好(回复率为 39%;98% 的回复完整;中位数完成时间为 11 (IQR: 12) 分钟):结论:PROM-OPAC 的实施似乎是可行的,该工具的心理测量特性也是可以接受的。还需要进一步评估其普遍性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The patient-reported outcome measure for older people living with frailty receiving acute care (PROM-OPAC): field-testing and validation.

Background: Current acute healthcare service metrics are not meaningful for older people living with frailty. Healthcare knowledge, situational security, and physical and psychosocial function are important outcomes typically not collected. The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) could support these assessments. Existing instruments are not comprehensive as they typically consider function, while older people with frailty also value enablement (self-determination and security in health and healthcare). This study field-tested and validated a PROM for older people with frailty receiving acute care (PROM-OPAC) to measure enablement.

Methods: People aged 65+ with Clinical Frailty Scale 5-8 were recruited within seventy-two hours of an emergency attendance. Iterations of the novel instrument were administered over three stages: (1) preliminary field-testing for reliability (response distribution and internal consistency) and structure (exploratory factor analysis, EFA); (2) intermediate field-testing of an improved instrument for reliability and structure; (3) final draft validation assessing reliability, structure (confirmatory factor analysis, CFA), and construct validity based on a priori hypotheses. Feasibility was appraised throughout using data completeness and response rates and times.

Results: 241 people participated. Three items of a preliminary seven-item measure had poor response distribution or loading and were accordingly improved. The intermediate instrument had interpretability issues and three items required further improvement. The final eight-item draft had acceptable reliability (Cronbach's alpha: 0.71), structure (two factors for self-determination and security; RMSEA: 0.065; TLI: 0.917; CFI: 0.944), and construct validity (lower scores from respondents waiting longer and requiring admission). Feasibility was promising (response rate 39%; 98% responses complete; median completion time 11 (IQR: 12) minutes).

Conclusions: Administration of the PROM-OPAC appeared feasible and the instrument had acceptable psychometric properties. Further evaluation is required to assess generalisability.

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
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes Health Professions-Health Information Management
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
120
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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