TBQ+D的发展:一种新的数字医疗负担的患者报告测量方法。

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Patient preference and adherence Pub Date : 2025-09-24 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/PPA.S540026
Misk Al Zahidy, Kerly Guevara Maldonado, Suvyaktha Simha, Mariana Borras-Osorio, Megan E Branda, Viet-Thi Tran, Jennifer L Ridgeway, Victor M Montori
{"title":"TBQ+D的发展:一种新的数字医疗负担的患者报告测量方法。","authors":"Misk Al Zahidy, Kerly Guevara Maldonado, Suvyaktha Simha, Mariana Borras-Osorio, Megan E Branda, Viet-Thi Tran, Jennifer L Ridgeway, Victor M Montori","doi":"10.2147/PPA.S540026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with diabetes manage complex treatment regimens that include the use of digital medicine tools. Existing instruments do not explicitly capture treatment burden, i.e., workload and its effect on patient's quality of life, from using digital medicine tools.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To engage patients and clinical experts in adapting the Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ) to capture digital treatment burden. The adapted instrument underwent cognitive testing and refinements to ensure it captures the burden of using digital medicine tools in diabetes self-management.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This two-phase study was conducted with adults with diabetes at the Division of Endocrinology at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN). First, we mapped themes from prior concept elicitation interviews to existing TBQ items to identify content gaps related to digital burden. Based on these gaps, the study team and expert panel generated new items and adapted existing ones to better reflect the workload and burdens from using digital medicine tools. The resulting instrument underwent three rounds of cognitive testing with adult patients living with diabetes, using a think-aloud protocol to assess clarity, relevance, and comprehensiveness. Results of cognitive testing informed iterative refinements across three rounds of interviews, leading to improved clarity, reduced redundancy, and improved relevance of items.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final TBQ+D retained the original 15-item TBQ structure, added 8 new items, and modified 8 extant ones to capture burden of digital care (e.g, syncing issues, discomfort from sensors, and device malfunctions). Cognitive testing demonstrated strong content relevance and patient comprehension.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The TBQ+D can measure digital treatment burden in patients with diabetes. Limitations include a relatively homogeneous sample drawn from a single center. Next steps include field testing for validation across diverse populations and settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":19972,"journal":{"name":"Patient preference and adherence","volume":"19 ","pages":"2975-2984"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12477269/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development of the TBQ+D: A Novel Patient-Reported Measure of The Burden of Digital Care.\",\"authors\":\"Misk Al Zahidy, Kerly Guevara Maldonado, Suvyaktha Simha, Mariana Borras-Osorio, Megan E Branda, Viet-Thi Tran, Jennifer L Ridgeway, Victor M Montori\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/PPA.S540026\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with diabetes manage complex treatment regimens that include the use of digital medicine tools. Existing instruments do not explicitly capture treatment burden, i.e., workload and its effect on patient's quality of life, from using digital medicine tools.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To engage patients and clinical experts in adapting the Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ) to capture digital treatment burden. The adapted instrument underwent cognitive testing and refinements to ensure it captures the burden of using digital medicine tools in diabetes self-management.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This two-phase study was conducted with adults with diabetes at the Division of Endocrinology at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN). First, we mapped themes from prior concept elicitation interviews to existing TBQ items to identify content gaps related to digital burden. Based on these gaps, the study team and expert panel generated new items and adapted existing ones to better reflect the workload and burdens from using digital medicine tools. The resulting instrument underwent three rounds of cognitive testing with adult patients living with diabetes, using a think-aloud protocol to assess clarity, relevance, and comprehensiveness. Results of cognitive testing informed iterative refinements across three rounds of interviews, leading to improved clarity, reduced redundancy, and improved relevance of items.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final TBQ+D retained the original 15-item TBQ structure, added 8 new items, and modified 8 extant ones to capture burden of digital care (e.g, syncing issues, discomfort from sensors, and device malfunctions). Cognitive testing demonstrated strong content relevance and patient comprehension.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The TBQ+D can measure digital treatment burden in patients with diabetes. Limitations include a relatively homogeneous sample drawn from a single center. Next steps include field testing for validation across diverse populations and settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19972,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Patient preference and adherence\",\"volume\":\"19 \",\"pages\":\"2975-2984\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12477269/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Patient preference and adherence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S540026\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient preference and adherence","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S540026","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:糖尿病患者管理复杂的治疗方案,包括使用数字医疗工具。现有的仪器没有明确地捕捉到使用数字医疗工具的治疗负担,即工作量及其对患者生活质量的影响。目的:让患者和临床专家参与调整治疗负担问卷(TBQ),以捕捉数字化治疗负担。调整后的仪器经过了认知测试和改进,以确保它能够捕捉到在糖尿病自我管理中使用数字医疗工具的负担。方法:这项两期研究是在梅奥诊所(Rochester, MN)内分泌科对成年糖尿病患者进行的。首先,我们将先前的概念启发访谈的主题映射到现有的TBQ项目,以确定与数字负担相关的内容差距。根据这些差距,研究小组和专家小组编制了新项目,并对现有项目进行了调整,以更好地反映使用数字医疗工具带来的工作量和负担。由此产生的仪器对患有糖尿病的成年患者进行了三轮认知测试,使用出声思考方案来评估清晰度,相关性和全面性。认知测试的结果为三轮访谈的迭代改进提供了信息,从而提高了清晰度,减少了冗余,并提高了项目的相关性。结果:最终的TBQ+D保留了原来的15项TBQ结构,增加了8个新项目,并修改了8个现有项目,以捕捉数字医疗负担(如同步问题、传感器不适和设备故障)。认知测试显示较强的内容相关性和患者理解能力。结论:TBQ+D可以衡量糖尿病患者的数字化治疗负担。限制包括从单一中心抽取的相对均匀的样本。接下来的步骤包括在不同人群和环境中进行现场验证测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Development of the TBQ+D: A Novel Patient-Reported Measure of The Burden of Digital Care.

Background: Patients with diabetes manage complex treatment regimens that include the use of digital medicine tools. Existing instruments do not explicitly capture treatment burden, i.e., workload and its effect on patient's quality of life, from using digital medicine tools.

Objective: To engage patients and clinical experts in adapting the Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ) to capture digital treatment burden. The adapted instrument underwent cognitive testing and refinements to ensure it captures the burden of using digital medicine tools in diabetes self-management.

Methods: This two-phase study was conducted with adults with diabetes at the Division of Endocrinology at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN). First, we mapped themes from prior concept elicitation interviews to existing TBQ items to identify content gaps related to digital burden. Based on these gaps, the study team and expert panel generated new items and adapted existing ones to better reflect the workload and burdens from using digital medicine tools. The resulting instrument underwent three rounds of cognitive testing with adult patients living with diabetes, using a think-aloud protocol to assess clarity, relevance, and comprehensiveness. Results of cognitive testing informed iterative refinements across three rounds of interviews, leading to improved clarity, reduced redundancy, and improved relevance of items.

Results: The final TBQ+D retained the original 15-item TBQ structure, added 8 new items, and modified 8 extant ones to capture burden of digital care (e.g, syncing issues, discomfort from sensors, and device malfunctions). Cognitive testing demonstrated strong content relevance and patient comprehension.

Conclusion: The TBQ+D can measure digital treatment burden in patients with diabetes. Limitations include a relatively homogeneous sample drawn from a single center. Next steps include field testing for validation across diverse populations and settings.

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
Patient preference and adherence
Patient preference and adherence MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.50%
发文量
354
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Patient Preference and Adherence is an international, peer reviewed, open access journal that focuses on the growing importance of patient preference and adherence throughout the therapeutic continuum. The journal is characterized by the rapid reporting of reviews, original research, modeling and clinical studies across all therapeutic areas. Patient satisfaction, acceptability, quality of life, compliance, persistence and their role in developing new therapeutic modalities and compounds to optimize clinical outcomes for existing disease states are major areas of interest for the journal. As of 1st April 2019, Patient Preference and Adherence will no longer consider meta-analyses for publication.
×
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