Patient knowledge of rotator cuff related shoulder pain condition and treatment and validation of a patient-reported knowledge questionnaire.
Аннотация
BACKGROUND
Rotator cuff related shoulder pain (RCRSP) knowledge is an important contributor to compliance with clinical practice guidelines and providing best practice care. However, there are no validated instruments for measuring health literacy levels among people with RCRSP. This study aimed to design a valid and reliable instrument to measure RCRSP health literacy and use it to evaluate an education intervention for people with RCRSP.
METHODS
Development of the patient knowledge questionnaire (PKQ-RCRSP) included three phases. Phase 1 was developed based on available literature and input from expert clinicians, researchers and patients. Face validity, pilot testing and readability assessment were also undertaken. In Phase 2, internal consistency and predictive validity were assessed in people with RCRSP and other shoulder pain diagnoses. In Phase 3, RCRSP health literacy was assessed.
RESULT: Face validity was acceptable and pilot testing identified minor accuracy issues that were corrected. Literacy level was rated as 'difficult to read' which reflects the medical terminology within the questionnaire. Internal consistency was very good and 81% of questions demonstrated acceptable predictive validity. Health literacy was heterogeneous depending on the question with less than 40% of respondents answering correctly for questions related to the indications, process and the known benefits of RCRSP surgery.
CONCLUSION
The PKQ-RCRSP demonstrated acceptable face validity, predictive validity and reliability (internal consistency) in assessing RCRSP health literacy. Health literacy among our small sample was poor for questions related to surgery for RCRSP.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.