Pre-test of questions on health-related resource use and expenditure, using behaviour coding and cognitive interviewing techniques

Chernyak, Nadja; Ernsting, Corinna; Icks, Andrea

doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-303

Cited by 26 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The techniques 'thinking aloud', 'probing', and 'observation of respondents' behaviour' were used to gauge respondents' ability to comprehend all items [14,15]. Responses were coded into one of the themes identi ed using a standardized behaviour coding form used to systematically identify questions requiring revision [16,17]. The codes were: (1) request for clari cation,…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Exploratory Factor Analysis of The Person-Centred Practice Inventory-Staff (PCPI-S) Questionnaire Among Malaysian Primary Healthcare Providers

Balqis-Ali

Saw

Jailani

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The Person-Centred Practice Inventory-Staff (PCPI-S) instrument was developed to measure healthcare providers’ perception towards their person-centred practice. The study aimed to explore the influence of culture, context, language and local practice towards the PCPI-S instrument adaptation process for use among public primary care healthcare providers in Malaysia.Methods: The original PCPI-S was reviewed and adapted for cultural suitability by an expert committee to ensure conceptual and item equivalence. The instrument was subsequently translated into the local Malay language using the forward-backward translation by two independent native speakers, and modified following pre-tests involving cognitive debriefing interviews. The psychometric properties of the corresponding instrument were determined by assessing the internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and correlation of the instrument, while the underlying structure was analysed using exploratory factor analysis.Results: Review by expert committee found items applicable to local context. Pre-tests on the translated instrument found multiple domains and questions were misinterpreted. Many translations were heavily influenced by culture, context, and language discrepancies. Results of subsequent pilot study found mean scores for all items ranged from 2.92 to 4.39. Notable ceiling effects were found. Internal consistency was found to be high (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.9). Exploratory factor analysis found formation of 11 components as opposed to the original 17 constructs. Conclusion: The results of this study provide evidence regarding the reliability and underlying structure of the PCPI-S instrument with regard to primary care practice. Culture, context, language and local practice heavily influenced the adaptation as well interpretation of the underlying structure and should be given emphasis when translating person-centred into practice.Trial registration: NMRR-18-309-40447

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Exploratory Factor Analysis of The Person-Centred Practice Inventory-Staff (PCPI-S) Questionnaire Among Malaysian Primary Healthcare Providers

Balqis-Ali

Saw

Jailani

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Conducting two rounds of TA interviews with different participants was another strength, as this procedure gave information on whether or not the initial adjustments were satisfactory. Previous studies have often failed to present the number of rounds that have been performed [48–50]. One difficult part of this process is to know when to terminate the TA.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A questionnaire measuring staff perceptions of Lean adoption in healthcare: development and psychometric testing

Bengtsson

Mathiassen

Engström

2017

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDuring the past decade, the concept of Lean has spread rapidly within the healthcare sector, but there is a lack of instruments that can measure staff’s perceptions of Lean adoption. Thus, the aim of the present study was to develop a questionnaire measuring Lean in healthcare, based on Liker’s description of Lean, by adapting an existing instrument developed for the service sector.MethodsA mixed-method design was used. Initially, items from the service sector instrument were categorized according to Liker’s 14 principles describing Lean within four domains: philosophy, processes, people and partners and problem-solving. Items were lacking for three of Liker’s principles and were therefore developed de novo. Think-aloud interviews were conducted with 12 healthcare staff from different professions to contextualize and examine the face validity of the questionnaire prototype. Thereafter, the adjusted questionnaire’s psychometric properties were assessed on the basis of a cross-sectional survey among 386 staff working in primary care.ResultsThe think-aloud interviews led to adjustments in the questionnaire to better suit a healthcare context, and the number of items was reduced. Confirmatory factor analysis of the adjusted questionnaire showed a generally acceptable correspondence with Liker’s description of Lean. Internal consistency, measured using Cronbach’s alpha, for the factors in Liker’s description of Lean was 0.60 for the factor people and partners, and over 0.70 for the three other factors. Test-retest reliability measured by the intra-class correlation coefficient ranged from 0.77 to 0.88 for the four factors.ConclusionsWe designed a questionnaire capturing staff’s perceptions of Lean adoption in healthcare on the basis of Liker’s description. This Lean in Healthcare Questionnaire (LiHcQ) showed generally acceptable psychometric properties, which supports its usability for measuring Lean adoption in healthcare. We suggest that further research focus on verifying the usability of LiHcQ in other healthcare settings, and on adjusting the instrument if needed.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2163-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…The level of overlap between data elements crucial to both clinical and economic outcome assessments typically obviates consideration of separate data collection protocols. Given that most case report forms are customized for each trial, data collection processes are typically not validated and can lead to variability in the content and quality of the information [48]. This variability reduces the ability to pool resource use data across studies and to make direct comparisons between studies.…”

Section: Patient-level Data: Resource Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Alongside Clinical Trials II—An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force Report

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinical trials evaluating medicines, medical devices, and procedures now commonly assess the economic value of these interventions. The growing number of prospective clinical/economic trials reflects both widespread interest in economic information for new technologies and the regulatory and reimbursement requirements of many countries that now consider evidence of economic value along with clinical efficacy. As decision makers increasingly demand evidence of economic value for health care interventions, conducting high-quality economic analyses alongside clinical studies is desirable because they broaden the scope of information available on a particular intervention, and can efficiently provide timely information with high internal and, when designed and analyzed properly, reasonable external validity. In 2005, ISPOR published the Good Research Practices for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Alongside Clinical Trials: The ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report. ISPOR initiated an update of the report in 2014 to include the methodological developments over the last 9 years. This report provides updated recommendations reflecting advances in several areas related to trial design, selecting data elements, database design and management, analysis, and reporting of results. Task force members note that trials should be designed to evaluate effectiveness (rather than efficacy) when possible, should include clinical outcome measures, and should obtain health resource use and health state utilities directly from study subjects. Collection of economic data should be fully integrated into the study. An incremental analysis should be conducted with an intention-to-treat approach, complemented by relevant subgroup analyses. Uncertainty should be characterized. Articles should adhere to established standards for reporting results of cost-effectiveness analyses. Economic studies alongside trials are complementary to other evaluations (e.g., modeling studies) as information for decision makers who consider evidence of economic value along with clinical efficacy when making resource allocation decisions.

show abstract

Pre-test of questions on health-related resource use and expenditure, using behaviour coding and cognitive interviewing techniques

Cited by 26 publications

References 11 publications

Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Exploratory Factor Analysis of The Person-Centred Practice Inventory-Staff (PCPI-S) Questionnaire Among Malaysian Primary Healthcare Providers

Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Exploratory Factor Analysis of The Person-Centred Practice Inventory-Staff (PCPI-S) Questionnaire Among Malaysian Primary Healthcare Providers

A questionnaire measuring staff perceptions of Lean adoption in healthcare: development and psychometric testing

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Alongside Clinical Trials II—An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force Report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About