在瑞士测试iMTA生产力成本调查问卷(iPCQ)在慢性病患者中的使用/ pr fung des iMTA生产力成本调查问卷(iPCQ)在瑞士的应用

T. Friedli, Brigitte Gantschnig
{"title":"在瑞士测试iMTA生产力成本调查问卷(iPCQ)在慢性病患者中的使用/ pr<e:1> fung des iMTA生产力成本调查问卷(iPCQ)在瑞士的应用","authors":"T. Friedli, Brigitte Gantschnig","doi":"10.2478/ijhp-2022-0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background Complex interprofessional programs in health care are dependent on the valid measurement of outcomes. The iMTA Productivity Costs Questionnaire (iPCQ) is one of the few instruments measuring productivity in a comprehensive way which is available in German language. This study explores the validity of the German-language iPCQ with a focus on test content and response processes. The aim of this study is to validate the German version of the iPCQ for the use with people with chronic conditions in Switzerland and to make suggestions for adaptation to the developers. Method This study is a qualitative validation study. We conducted cognitive interviews with people with chronic illnesses and with other experts and analysed them based on the framework method. Results Participants had problems understanding many items and explanations and remembering correct answers. Furthermore, the study revealed construct-related problems in measuring the productivity of people with partial incapacity for work. Conclusions The results show that German version of the questionnaire needs improvement in order to guarantee validity and reliability.","PeriodicalId":91706,"journal":{"name":"International journal of health professions","volume":"1 1","pages":"25 - 38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Testing the iMTA Productivity Costs Questionnaire (iPCQ) for the use with chronic disease patients in Switzerland / Prüfung des iMTA Productivity Costs Questionnaire (iPCQ) für den Einsatz bei Patienten/-innen mit chronischen Krankheiten in der Schweiz\",\"authors\":\"T. Friedli, Brigitte Gantschnig\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/ijhp-2022-0003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Background Complex interprofessional programs in health care are dependent on the valid measurement of outcomes. The iMTA Productivity Costs Questionnaire (iPCQ) is one of the few instruments measuring productivity in a comprehensive way which is available in German language. This study explores the validity of the German-language iPCQ with a focus on test content and response processes. The aim of this study is to validate the German version of the iPCQ for the use with people with chronic conditions in Switzerland and to make suggestions for adaptation to the developers. Method This study is a qualitative validation study. We conducted cognitive interviews with people with chronic illnesses and with other experts and analysed them based on the framework method. Results Participants had problems understanding many items and explanations and remembering correct answers. Furthermore, the study revealed construct-related problems in measuring the productivity of people with partial incapacity for work. Conclusions The results show that German version of the questionnaire needs improvement in order to guarantee validity and reliability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91706,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of health professions\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"25 - 38\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of health professions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/ijhp-2022-0003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of health professions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/ijhp-2022-0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景复杂的卫生保健跨专业项目依赖于有效的结果测量。iMTA生产力成本调查问卷(iPCQ)是为数不多的以全面方式衡量生产力的工具之一,有德语版本。本研究从测验内容和反应过程两个方面探讨了德语iPCQ的效度。本研究的目的是验证德国版本的iPCQ在瑞士慢性病患者中的使用,并为开发人员提供适应建议。方法本研究为定性验证研究。我们对慢性病患者和其他专家进行了认知访谈,并基于框架方法对其进行了分析。结果参与者在理解许多项目和解释以及记住正确答案方面存在问题。此外,该研究还揭示了在衡量部分丧失工作能力的人的生产力时存在的与建筑相关的问题。结论调查结果表明,德文版本的问卷需要改进,以保证效度和信度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Testing the iMTA Productivity Costs Questionnaire (iPCQ) for the use with chronic disease patients in Switzerland / Prüfung des iMTA Productivity Costs Questionnaire (iPCQ) für den Einsatz bei Patienten/-innen mit chronischen Krankheiten in der Schweiz
Abstract Background Complex interprofessional programs in health care are dependent on the valid measurement of outcomes. The iMTA Productivity Costs Questionnaire (iPCQ) is one of the few instruments measuring productivity in a comprehensive way which is available in German language. This study explores the validity of the German-language iPCQ with a focus on test content and response processes. The aim of this study is to validate the German version of the iPCQ for the use with people with chronic conditions in Switzerland and to make suggestions for adaptation to the developers. Method This study is a qualitative validation study. We conducted cognitive interviews with people with chronic illnesses and with other experts and analysed them based on the framework method. Results Participants had problems understanding many items and explanations and remembering correct answers. Furthermore, the study revealed construct-related problems in measuring the productivity of people with partial incapacity for work. Conclusions The results show that German version of the questionnaire needs improvement in order to guarantee validity and reliability.
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信