背景:从住院到家庭的护理过渡是一个复杂的过程,存在潜在的患者安全风险,特别是对于多病患者。传统上,主要通过再入院率评估医疗过渡质量.然而,解释再入院率面临挑战,和再入院率未能抓住患者对护理过渡质量的看法。可以通过使用患者报告的经验措施(PREM)来提供对患者护理或健康服务经验的了解,以及两个PREM护理过渡措施15(CTM-15)和护理过渡伙伴措施第1部分和第2部分(PACT-M1和PACT-M2)从患者角度评估护理过渡质量。这项研究的目的是翻译,文化适应,并评估CTM-15,PACT-M1和PACT-M2对讲丹麦语的多重性患者的内容效度。
方法:使用两步方法进行内容验证,包括认知汇报和对患者的访谈,代表目标群体,以及来自代表丹麦医疗保健系统所有三个部门的医疗保健专业人员的定量数据收集。对患者进行了关于内容有效性、可理解性、相关性,和全面性。医疗保健专业人员通过问卷调查评估每个项目的相关性和全面性,允许计算内容有效性指数(CVI)。项目CVI≥0.78被认为是良好的。
结果:定性数据的结果表明,CTM-15和PACT-M问卷都被认为是相关的,和可理解的,和全面的目标群体。在项目级别计算的CVI确定PACT-M1和PACT-M2在医疗保健专业人员中表现出优异的内容有效性,而CTM-15两项的CVI低于“良好”的阈值。
结论:丹麦版本的PACT-M问卷显示出良好的内容效度,根据患者的定性数据和医疗保健专业人员的定量数据,CTM-15证明了可接受的内容有效性。进一步验证问卷,建议通过评估其结构效度和信度。
在这项研究中,我们的目的是翻译两份问卷,CTM-15和PACT-M,解决了患者对护理过渡质量的看法,成丹麦语。此外,我们评估了它们的内容有效性,即,它们的相关性,可理解性,和全面性。这项研究很重要,因为我们需要将患者的经验纳入从入院到家庭的护理过渡的总体评估中。这是可能通过验证问卷。为了调查内容的有效性,重要的是要包括目标群体的代表,在这项研究中,患有多种疾病的患者,以及该领域的专业专家。我们采访了患者对相关性的看法,可理解性,和问卷的全面性。此外,我们向医疗保健专业人员询问了问卷的相关性和全面性。根据患者和医疗保健专业人员的说法,PACT-M表现出良好的内容有效性。CTM-15在患者中显示出良好的内容效度,然而,医疗保健专业人员认为两项不相关.为了确保问卷的可用性,进一步调查它们的结构效度,可靠性,响应是必要的。完成验证过程后,问卷将成为旨在改善护理过渡的研究项目的宝贵工具,以及质量监控和改进举措。
BACKGROUND: Transition of care from hospitalisation to home is a complex process with potential patient safety risks, especially for patients with multimorbidity. Traditionally, the quality of transition of care has been evaluated primarily through readmission rates. However, interpreting the readmission rates presents challenges, and readmission rates fail to capture the patient\'s perspective on the quality of the care transition. Insight into the patient\'s experience with their care or a health service can be provided through the use of patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), and the two PREMs Care Transitions Measure 15 (CTM-15) and Partners at Care Transitions Measure part 1 and 2 (PACT-M1 and PACT-M2) assess on the quality of transition of care from the patients\' perspective. The aim of this study was to translate, culturally adapt, and assess content validity of CTM-15, PACT-M1, and PACT-M2 for Danish-speaking patients with multimorbidity.
METHODS: A two-step approach was used for content validation, involving cognitive debriefing and interviews with patients, representing the target group, as well as quantitative data collection from healthcare professionals representing all three sectors of the Danish healthcare system. The patients were systematically interviewed regarding the aspects of content validity; comprehensibility, relevance, and comprehensiveness. The healthcare professionals assessed the relevance and comprehensiveness of each item through questionnaires, allowing the calculation of a content validity index (CVI). An item CVI ≥ 0.78 is considered good.
RESULTS: The results of the qualitative data indicated that both CTM-15 and the PACT-M questionnaires were considered relevant, and comprehensible, and comprehensive to the target group. The CVI computed at item level determined that PACT-M1 and PACT-M2 demonstrated excellent content validity among the healthcare professionals, whereas the CVI for two items of the CTM-15 fell below the threshold value for \"good\".
CONCLUSIONS: The Danish versions of the PACT-M questionnaires demonstrated good content validity, and the CTM-15 demonstrated acceptable content validity based on qualitative data from patients and quantitative data from healthcare professionals. Further validation of the questionnaires, by assessing their construct validity and reliability is recommended.
In this study, we aimed to translate two questionnaires, CTM-15 and PACT-M, that address patients’ perspectives on the quality of transition of care, into Danish. Furthermore, we assessed their content validity i.e., their relevance, comprehensibility, and comprehensiveness. The study is important because we need to include the patients’ experiences in the overall evaluation of transition of care from hospital admission to home. This is possible through validated questionnaires. In order to investigate the content validity, it is important to include representatives of the target group, in this study patients with multimorbidity, as well as professional experts in the area. We interviewed patients about their perception of the relevance, comprehensibility, and comprehensiveness of the questionnaires. Additionally, we asked healthcare professionals about the relevance and comprehensiveness of the questionnaires. PACT-M demonstrated good content validity according to both patients and healthcare professionals. CTM-15 showed good content validity among patients, however, two items were not considered relevant by healthcare professionals. To ensure the usability of the questionnaires, further investigation into their construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness is necessary. Upon completion of the validation process, the questionnaires will be valuable tools in research projects aiming to improve the transition of care, as well as in quality monitoring and improvement initiatives.