Development and initial validation of MedHipPro-Q: a questionnaire assessing medication management of hip fracture patients in different care settings.
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Feb 2022
22 Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
11
06
2021
accepted:
18
01
2022
entrez:
23
2
2022
pubmed:
24
2
2022
medline:
25
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A validated questionnaire to assess medication management of hip fracture patients within and outside the hospital setting was lacking. The study aims were to describe the hip fracture patient pathway, and develop a valid and feasible questionnaire to assess clinicians' experience with medication management of hip fracture patients in different care settings throughout the patient pathway. This qualitative, descriptive methodological study used strategic and snowball sampling. The questionnaire was developed, and face and content validity explored through interviews with stakeholders. Phase I described the hip fracture patient pathway, and identified questionnaire dimensions in semi-structured interviews with management and clinicians (n = 37). The patient pathway was also discussed in six meetings (n = 70). Phase II refined a first draft of the questionnaire through cognitive interviews with future respondents (n = 23). The draft was modified after each interview. Post hoc, cognitive interview data were analysed using matrix analysis to condense problems and solutions into themes and subthemes. Phase III, converted the final version to a digital format, and tested its feasibility with a subset of the cognitive interview participants (n = 21) who completed the questionnaire and provided feedback. Phase I: Hip fracture patients were cared for in at least three different care settings, and went through at least four handovers between and within primary and secondary care. Three questionnaire dimensions were identified: 1) Medication reconciliation and review, 2) Communication of key information, and 3) Profession and setting. Phase II: The MedHipPro-Q was representative of how the different professions experienced medication management in all settings, and hence showed face and content validity. Post hoc analysis: Problem themes (with sub-themes) were Representativeness (-of patient pathway and -of respondent reality) and Presentation (Language and Appearance). Solution themes (with sub-themes) were: Content (added or deleted) and Presentation (modified appearance or corrected language). Phase III: Participants did not identify technical, linguistic or content flaws in the questionnaire, and the digital version was considered feasible for use. The novel MedHipPro-Q showed good face and content validity, and was feasible for use throughout the hip fracture patient pathway. The rigorous development process supports its construct validity and reliability.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
A validated questionnaire to assess medication management of hip fracture patients within and outside the hospital setting was lacking. The study aims were to describe the hip fracture patient pathway, and develop a valid and feasible questionnaire to assess clinicians' experience with medication management of hip fracture patients in different care settings throughout the patient pathway.
METHODS
METHODS
This qualitative, descriptive methodological study used strategic and snowball sampling. The questionnaire was developed, and face and content validity explored through interviews with stakeholders. Phase I described the hip fracture patient pathway, and identified questionnaire dimensions in semi-structured interviews with management and clinicians (n = 37). The patient pathway was also discussed in six meetings (n = 70). Phase II refined a first draft of the questionnaire through cognitive interviews with future respondents (n = 23). The draft was modified after each interview. Post hoc, cognitive interview data were analysed using matrix analysis to condense problems and solutions into themes and subthemes. Phase III, converted the final version to a digital format, and tested its feasibility with a subset of the cognitive interview participants (n = 21) who completed the questionnaire and provided feedback.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Phase I: Hip fracture patients were cared for in at least three different care settings, and went through at least four handovers between and within primary and secondary care. Three questionnaire dimensions were identified: 1) Medication reconciliation and review, 2) Communication of key information, and 3) Profession and setting. Phase II: The MedHipPro-Q was representative of how the different professions experienced medication management in all settings, and hence showed face and content validity. Post hoc analysis: Problem themes (with sub-themes) were Representativeness (-of patient pathway and -of respondent reality) and Presentation (Language and Appearance). Solution themes (with sub-themes) were: Content (added or deleted) and Presentation (modified appearance or corrected language). Phase III: Participants did not identify technical, linguistic or content flaws in the questionnaire, and the digital version was considered feasible for use.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The novel MedHipPro-Q showed good face and content validity, and was feasible for use throughout the hip fracture patient pathway. The rigorous development process supports its construct validity and reliability.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35193572
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07524-2
pii: 10.1186/s12913-022-07524-2
pmc: PMC8862359
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
240Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Int J Nurs Stud. 2014 Jun;51(6):934-42
pubmed: 24182731
BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Apr 15;21(1):349
pubmed: 33858383
J Orthop Surg Res. 2006 Sep 25;1:3
pubmed: 17150123
Br J Gen Pract. 2019 Dec 26;70(690):e9-e19
pubmed: 31848201
Work. 2012;41 Suppl 1:2915-24
pubmed: 22317162
J Clin Nurs. 2011 Jan;20(1-2):136-45
pubmed: 21158989
J Bone Miner Res. 2017 Dec;32(12):2339-2346
pubmed: 28833527
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(31):1-256
pubmed: 11809125
Int J Clin Pract. 2015 Nov;69(11):1268-74
pubmed: 26202091
Disabil Rehabil. 2005 Sep 30-Oct 15;27(18-19):1053-60
pubmed: 16278174
Surgeon. 2006 Jun;4(3):145-51
pubmed: 16764199
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2015 Sep;42(5):533-44
pubmed: 24193818
PLoS One. 2019 Jul 29;14(7):e0214630
pubmed: 31356615
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2011 Jul;67(7):741-52
pubmed: 21318595
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 Oct 05;11:137
pubmed: 21974842
Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2016 May;23(3):166-170
pubmed: 31156840
BMC Health Serv Res. 2006 Apr 03;6:44
pubmed: 16584553
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jul;63(7):737-45
pubmed: 20494804
Qual Life Res. 2003 May;12(3):229-38
pubmed: 12769135
BMC Geriatr. 2017 Oct 10;17(1):230
pubmed: 29017448
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Qual Saf Health Care. 2007 Feb;16(1):34-9
pubmed: 17301202
Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2013 Mar;4(1):3-9
pubmed: 23936733
BMJ Open. 2017 Aug 29;7(8):e015574
pubmed: 28851773
Osteoporos Int. 2012 Oct;23(10):2527-34
pubmed: 22246602
J Bone Miner Res. 2009 Jul;24(7):1299-307
pubmed: 19257816