Validation of a Portuguese version of the Information Needs in Cardiac Rehabilitation (INCR) scale in Brazil

Ghisi, Gabriela Lima de Melo; Santos, Rafaella Zulianello dos; Bonin, Christiani Batista Decker; Roussenq, Suellen Cristina; Grace, Sherry L.; Oh, Paul; Benetti, Magnus

doi:10.1016/j.hrtlng.2014.01.009

Cited by 13 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Three measures have been psychometrically tested in two studies each. First, this was the Information Needs in Cardiac Rehabilitation measure [36, 37]. Second, was a measure on informational needs of men with prostate cancer by Templeton et al [33] with further testing by O’Connor et al [31].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Internal consistency was calculated in 21 out of 24 included studies. Only six of them received a “fair” score [9, 29, 30, 37, 43, 44], while 15 scored “poor” [22, 24, 25, 28, 31–36, 38–42]. The second most commonly assessed property was content validity, which was assessed in 17 studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Structural validity was assessed in nine studies, with six scoring “poor” [9, 24, 25, 33, 38, 42] and three scoring “fair” [29, 43, 44]. Scores for reliability were “poor” in three studies [22, 36, 41] and “fair” for four studies [27, 37, 43, 44]. Of the six studies evaluating cross-cultural validity, only one was rated as “poor” [43], while two scored “fair” [28, 30], two received a “good” [22, 37] and one an “excellent” [42] score.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scores for reliability were “poor” in three studies [22, 36, 41] and “fair” for four studies [27, 37, 43, 44]. Of the six studies evaluating cross-cultural validity, only one was rated as “poor” [43], while two scored “fair” [28, 30], two received a “good” [22, 37] and one an “excellent” [42] score. Hypothesis testing was done in four studies, of which two performed “poorly” [29, 34] and two were rated as “good” [30, 44].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The best results were shown for the measure of Ndosi et al [30] for rheumatic diseases, which is based on the item response theory and had been tested in a large population in seven European countries. A second study with satisfactory quality was the one conducted by Ghisi et al [37] on an instrument for the use in cardiac rehabilitation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Assessment of patient information needs: A systematic review of measures

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundProviding patient information is a central aspect of patient-centered care. Fulfilling personal information needs has positive effects on several health-related outcomes. Measurement instruments help to identify individual information needs in an effective way. The present study gives an overview of existing information needs measures and further evaluates the quality of their psychometric properties and their psychometric studies.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search on psychometric studies of measures that assess information needs in PubMed and Embase. Furthermore, we carried out a secondary search with reference and citation tracking of the included articles. Title, abstracts and full texts were screened by two independent reviewers for eligibility. We extracted data on content of the measures, validation samples and psychometric properties. In addition we rated the methodological quality with the COSMIN checklist and the quality of psychometric properties with the criteria of Terwee and colleagues.Results24 studies on 21 measures were included. Most instruments assessed information needs of patients with cancer or cardiac diseases. The majority of the instruments were in English language and from western countries. Most studies included information on internal consistency and content validity. The ratings showed mixed results with clear deficiencies in the methodological quality of most studies.DiscussionThis is the first systematic review that summarized the existing evidence on measures on patient information needs using two instruments for a systematic quality assessment. The results show a need for more psychometric studies on existing measures. In addition, reporting on psychometric studies needs to be improved to be able to evaluate the reliability of the psychometric properties. Furthermore, we were not able to identify any measures on information needs for some frequent chronic diseases. Other methods to elicit information needs (e.g. open-ended interviews, question prompt sheets) could be considered as alternatives if sound measures are missing.

show abstract