Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Studies with a qualitative or psychometric research approach (occasionally…
Studies with a qualitative or psychometric research approach (occasionally scanty)
Denters et al. 2012
Setting
Netherlands
Teaching hospital
Elective outpatients
Method
4 focus group interviews with each 6 participants
n=24
"
The focus group sessions were reviewed and an item pool of topics mentioned in the focus groups was compiled
"
Aim
To elaborate on their experience with colonoscopy procedures and to list factors they felt were important contributors to their satisfaction with the procedure
Reflections
Description of qualitative analysis is missing
Could have used CVI
Instrument
A list of 55 items
Statements
5 point Likert scale
1 (not at all important) 5 (very important)
Data collection
On the procedure day
After the procedure before leaving the hospital
Postprocedure questionnaire
Psychometric
No reported testing
Interviews - face-validity?
McEntire et al 2013
Aim
To determine patients' preferences and expectations for day case colonoscopy
Method
mGHAA-9
Further modification
"
A preliminary
qualitative
study of the questionnaire was undertaken on a sample of 20 patientes to review its design for acceptability and appropriataness to the patient cohort and for interpretability of the results
."
n=20
Yacavone et al 2001
Ko et al 2009
Hydes et al 2011
Setting
UK
Teaching hospital
Elective outpatients
Instrument
15 minutes to complete
Data collection
Preprocedure questionnaire
Before the procedure at the unit
15 items
Likert scale
Psychometric
Validity
Face-validity
Poorly described
Reliability
20 patients postprocedure
Comparison between pre- and postquestionnaire
Significant association for all ranked values
Reflections
Descriptive cross-sectional study
Mitchell et al 2012
Aim
To develop a reliable and valid instrument to measure colonoscopy-related embarrassment
Method
Development process mostly well described
Items
Review of the literature
Interviews with 5 patients
Method for analysis is missing
Setting
Screening colonoscopy
USA
Midwestern
Instrument
Psychometric testing
Content validity
CVI = 0.93
3 experts
Compared decisions
Pilot study
n=10
Cognitive interviews
Think aloud
Concurrent and retrospective probing questions
Paraphrasing
Hypothesis - internal consistency reliability
Construct validity
Principal component analysis
Poweranalysis
For the testing
Cronbach's alpha 0.95
13 items
4 point Likert scale
Data collection
Mail
Reminder/thank you 1 week after mail
Replacement survey mailed 2 weeks later
50/50
Experienced a screening colonoscopy within 10 years
Never experienced a colonoscopy
Reflections
Only takes one parameter into account - embarrassment
Very careful description of psychometric testing
Vargo et al 2009
Aim
To assess satisfaction with sedation procedures during colonoscopy and EGD
Method
Development of items
1 expert focus group
n=9
2 patient focus group
n=18
Who, within the past 2 week, had undergone colonoscopy or EGD
Review of literature
Psychometric testing
Content validity
Cognitive debriefing interviews
4 clinicians
10 patients
Explorative factor analysis
Oblique rotation
Eigenvalues
Scree plots
Simple structure
Concurrent/construct validity
Pearson
Between PSSI or CSSI and other patient-related questionnaires and clinical characteristics
Internal consistency reliability
PSSI: Total score was 0.91
Cronbach's alpha
CSSI: Total score was 0.95
Other instruments
Patients
Socially Desirable Response Scale (SDRS)
5 items
The Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ-18)
18 items
Th SF-12 Health Survey (SF-12)
12 items
Clinicians
Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (OAA/S)
1 item
Visual analogue scale (VAS)
1 item
Setting
USA
Maryland
Gastroentrologic clinics
Ambulatory/Hospital?
Instrument
Data collection
Abbreviated PSSI 11 items after the procedure before leaving the hospital
The full PSSI 26 items their next visit within 24-48 hours
CSSI
28 items
After factor analysis - 16 items
Sedation administration (11 items)
Recovery/postoperative procedure (5 items)
1 total satisfaction score
PSSI
26 items
After factor analysis - 16 items
Sedation delivery (2 items)
Procedural recall (4 items)
Sedation side effects (10 items)
1 total satisfaction score
7 point Likert scale
Reflections
Only takes one parameter into account - sedation
Useful in clinical application
Yacavone et al 2001
Aim
To identify and prioritize factors related to satisfaction with GI endoscopy from the patient's perspective
To identify potential domains of endoscopy patient satisfaction
Method
Derived from mGHAA-9 questionnaire
Review of published information and outpatient satisfaction surveys currently in use to identify other factors of importance
Setting
USA
Minneapolis
Hospital
Instrument
Data collection
Ranking 15 items
Outpatients with previous experience of endoscopy
Before the scheduled procedure in the waiting area
Clinicians
Intraclinical mail
Reminder 2 weeks later
New survey after additional 1 week
Psychometric
Face-validity
By whom?
Correlations
Spearman
Reflections
No patients involved when develop the items
Memory bias?
Significant differences between patient and endoscopist ranking
Yanai et al 2008
Aim
To assess how patients rated the importance of 16 criteria, based on the ASGE criteria and on the Informed Consent Recommendation on Ethics in Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy held in Kos in 2002
To compare patients' ratings with those of gastroenterologists and support staff (nurses and receptionists)
Method
Inspired by GHAA-9
Authors
Variety of nonmedical persons
Setting
Europe
Isreal - Tel Aviv
Hospital
Instrument
Data collection
Patients
To patients who recently had a colonoscopy or who were attending the clinic and who had an endoscopy in the previous 6 months
n=81
Clinicians
Gastroenterologists n=71
Nurses and support staff n=36
16 items ranking
Psychometric
??? :warning:
Reflections
Lack of psychometric testing
Pena et al 2005
Aim
To test the reliability of a developed questionnaire that measures and predict aversive endoscopic experience in a group of outpatients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy
Setting
USA
Hospital
Kentucky
Instrument
Data collection
Preprocedure
10 items
Anxiety
Nervousness
Drug history
Postprocedure
7 items
Endoscopic tolerance
Willingness to repeat
Outpatient
Psychometric
Development of items
Experts
4 endoscopists
3 nurses/support staff
1 qualitative research expert
A qualitative survey was then performed to explore patients' desires regarding endoscopy sedation. Subjects were queried prior to their procedure regarding wishes and expectations for sedation
Three aspects of sedation
Level of consiousness
Pain control
Memory
Review of the literature
Validity
Face-validity
Group of experts
Content validity
Group of experts
Pilot testing
Assess problems related of specific items
Assess reliability and validity of the scales
Determine the need to add or delete questions
n = 100
Reflections
Som man frågar får man svar... items om nervousness and use of medication (prescription of narcotic)