Heart & lung : the journal of critical care · 2019
Development, piloting and validation of the Recommending Cardiac Rehabilitation (ReCaRe) instrument.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
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.
Ski Chantal F, Jones Martin, Astley Carolyn, Neubeck Lis, Thompson David R, Gallagher Robyn, Du Huiyun, Clark Robyn A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Health practitioners' values, attitudes and beliefs largely determine their referrals to cardiac rehabilitation (CR).
OBJECTIVE: To develop and test the Recommending Cardiac Rehabilitation scale (ReCaRe), designed to assess health professionals attitudes, values and beliefs to CR referral.
METHODS: ReCaRe was appraised for: content validity (Delphi method, expert panel); interpretability and face validity (interview, health professionals); factor structure and internal consistency (survey, health professionals); and test-retest reliability (survey, health professionals). Normative scores were collated.
RESULTS: ReCaRe initially comprised 75 items. Initially, a Content Validity Index (CVI) was calculated for ratings of item relevance (CVI range; 0.27-1.0), which resulted in the removal of 19 items. After preliminary validation and psychometric testing, 34 items were factor-analysed (n = 24) providing a 17-item, four-factor scale: perceived severity and susceptibility (α = 0.93, κ = 0.37); perceived service accessibility (α = 0.91, κ = 0.67); perceived benefit (α = 0.97, κ = 0.47); perceived barriers and attitudes (α = 0.82, κ = 0.49). ReCaRe normative scores (n = 75) are reported.
CONCLUSIONS: This psychometric analysis found ReCaRe to demonstrate good face validity, internal consistency and fair to substantial test-retest reliability. The next step is to validate these initial findings on a larger sample size to confirm whether ReCaRe can enable identification of factors impacting CR referral.
OBJECTIVE: To develop and test the Recommending Cardiac Rehabilitation scale (ReCaRe), designed to assess health professionals attitudes, values and beliefs to CR referral.
METHODS: ReCaRe was appraised for: content validity (Delphi method, expert panel); interpretability and face validity (interview, health professionals); factor structure and internal consistency (survey, health professionals); and test-retest reliability (survey, health professionals). Normative scores were collated.
RESULTS: ReCaRe initially comprised 75 items. Initially, a Content Validity Index (CVI) was calculated for ratings of item relevance (CVI range; 0.27-1.0), which resulted in the removal of 19 items. After preliminary validation and psychometric testing, 34 items were factor-analysed (n = 24) providing a 17-item, four-factor scale: perceived severity and susceptibility (α = 0.93, κ = 0.37); perceived service accessibility (α = 0.91, κ = 0.67); perceived benefit (α = 0.97, κ = 0.47); perceived barriers and attitudes (α = 0.82, κ = 0.49). ReCaRe normative scores (n = 75) are reported.
CONCLUSIONS: This psychometric analysis found ReCaRe to demonstrate good face validity, internal consistency and fair to substantial test-retest reliability. The next step is to validate these initial findings on a larger sample size to confirm whether ReCaRe can enable identification of factors impacting CR referral.