提高康复临床决策中研究证据整合倾向双语指数项目的清晰度和可解释性

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Jacqueline Roberge-Dao, Nancy Mayo, Annie Rochette, Keiko Shikako, Aliki Thomas
{"title":"提高康复临床决策中研究证据整合倾向双语指数项目的清晰度和可解释性","authors":"Jacqueline Roberge-Dao,&nbsp;Nancy Mayo,&nbsp;Annie Rochette,&nbsp;Keiko Shikako,&nbsp;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":"{\"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,&nbsp;Nancy Mayo,&nbsp;Annie Rochette,&nbsp;Keiko Shikako,&nbsp;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}","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

摘要

解释语言差异的清晰、可解释的测量对于准确评估康复临床医生将研究证据整合到临床决策中的倾向至关重要。目的和目的为康复临床医生将研究证据纳入临床决策倾向的五项双语多维指标的清晰性和可解释性提供证据。方法本研究分三个步骤进行:(1)以职业治疗师、物理治疗师和研究人员为焦点小组,对问卷的清晰度、一致性和间隔特性进行评估,并就英语和法语的等效性达成一致。(2)我们进行了认知访谈,临床医生详细阐述了他们对项目的解释、项目的可理解性和反应选项的适当性。接受的修改被整合并与后续参与者进行测试。(3)我们进行了一项在线调查,以验证0-100分的回答选项的英语和法语等效性。结果在定性修订过程中(一个有7名参与者的焦点小组,随后进行27次访谈),该指数被修订了12次,对研究证据和态度项目的使用进行了实质性修改。结论本研究提高了该指标的临床相关性,减少了测量误差,揭示了影响临床医生将研究证据纳入决策倾向的个人或组织因素,最终改善了康复效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Improving Clarity and Interpretability of Items in a Bilingual Index of Propensity to Integrate Research Evidence Into Clinical Decision-Making in Rehabilitation

Improving Clarity and Interpretability of Items in a Bilingual Index of Propensity to Integrate Research Evidence Into Clinical Decision-Making in Rehabilitation

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.

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
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
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.
×
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