ObjectivesTo determine the internal consistency and the underlying components of our translated and adapted Swedish version of the General Medical Council's multisource feedback questionnaires (GMC questionnaires) for physicians and to confirm which aspects of good medical practice the latent variable structure reflected. MethodsFrom October 2015 to March 2016, residents in family medicine in Sweden were invited to participate in the study and to use the Swedish version to perform self-evaluations and acquire feedback from both their patients and colleagues. The validation focused on internal consistency and construct validity. Main outcome measures were Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, Principal Component Analysis, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis indices. ResultsA total of 752 completed questionnaires from patients, colleagues, and residents were analysed. Of these, 213 comprised resident self-evaluations, 336 were feedback from residents’ patients, and 203 were feedback from residents’ colleagues. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the scores were 0.88 from patients, 0.93 from colleagues, and 0.84 in the self-evaluations. The Confirmatory Factor Analysis validated two models that fit the data reasonably well and reflected important aspects of good medical practice. The first model had two latent factors for patient-related items concerning empathy and consultation management, and the second model had five latent factors for colleague-related items, including knowledge and skills, attitude and approach, reflection and development, teaching, and trust.ConclusionsThe current Swedish version seems to be a reliable and valid tool for formative assessment for resident physicians and their supervisors. This needs to be verified in larger samples.
Objectivesto explore potential users’ opinions of a translated and culturally adapted Swedish version of the General Medical Council's MultiSource Feedback Questionnaires. MethodsIn this qualitative study, we used content analysis on semi-structured interviews from 44 resident doctors, 29 medical colleagues and 28 patients to analyse their opinions of the Swedish adapted version, created through translation and expert review. Transcribed interview data concerning the informants’ general thoughts about the tool were coded manually by three independent coders into categories, compiled as themes, and exemplified by citations. Data regarding specific question wording and relevance were used as a basis for final questionnaire revision. ResultsThe informants valued the tool’s potential to provide essential feedback to support the development of residents' medical competences and communication skills. Resident doctors welcomed support in their self-reflection. Colleagues saw it as a valuable tool for assessment that needs to be used sensitively. Patients appreciated opportunities to communicate feedback. Ambiguous or irrelevant questions and response options were identified. Some colleague-related questions about specific skills and knowledge appeared ambiguous to residents. The final questionnaire revision - based on the expert review and the interview analysis - resulted in a number of changes: four questions were deleted, twelve were reformulated, and six were added. ConclusionsPotential users perceived the Swedish adapted version as a beneficial tool for residents in their professional development. Further research is needed to explore how this tool can influence doctors’ development when used in real-life settings.
Background At Doctors of the World Medical Clinic in Stockholm (DWMCS), medical care is offered to migrants who live under particularly vulnerable conditions and who lack access to subsidized care. The demographic, diagnostic and therapeutic panorama of vulnerable migrants is unknown. Methods A quantitative, retrospective study mapping gender, age, diagnostic group, primary diagnosis, therapeutics, referrals, and session timing (whether the care session took place in summer -April to September, or winter - October to March) by reading all patients’ electronic journals at DWMCS between 2014-04-01 and 2017-12-31. Diagnostic groups were classified according to the classification system ICPC-2 which contains six diagnostic groups: symptoms/complaints, infections, neoplasms, injuries, congenital anomalies and other diagnoses. Primary diagnosis was defined as the diagnosis that was first in the diagnosis list for the visit. Difference in median age was calculated with the Mann-Whitney test (MW), and two-group analysis of nominal data was performed with Monte Carlo simulations (MC) and chi square test´s (X2). Results The study included 1323 patients: 838 women and 485 men. The median age for women 37 years (29-47) was slightly lower than for men, 40 years (31-47) MW (p = 0.002). The largest diagnostic group was symptoms / complaints. The five most common primary diagnoses were cough (4%), back symptom / complaint (4%), cystitis (3%), upper respiratory infection acute (3%) and abdominal pain epigastric (2%). The most common therapeutic (55%) was pharmaceutical. Referrals accounted for 12% of the therapeutics and 25% of the referrals were to an emergency room. Tests of significance indicated an uneven distribution of diagnostic groups MC (p = 0.003), infectious primary diagnoses MC (p = 0.0001) and referrals MC (p = 0.006) between men and women and an uneven seasonal distribution among the Other diagnoses MC (0.04) and ten most common drug treatments MC (p=0.002). Conclusions The demographic, diagnostic and therapeutic panorama of vulnerable migrants at DWMCS was elucidated. Vulnerable migrants have differences in morbidity depending on gender and season, differences in therapeutics depending on gender and differences among their most common drug treatments depending on season. This knowledge is important when addressing the health problems of vulnerable migrants.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.