Qualitative assessment of the primary care outcomes questionnaire: a cognitive interview study

Abstract Background Even though traumatization is linked to substantially reduced health-related quality of life, help-seeking and service utilization among trauma survivors are very low. To date, there has not been available in Iceland a culturally attuned, self-reported measure on help-seeking barriers after trauma. This study aimed to translate and cross-culturally adapt the English version of Barriers to Help-Seeking for Trauma (BHS-TR) scale into the Icelandic language and context. Methods The BHS-TR was culturally adapted following well-established and rigorous guidelines, including forward-backward translation, expert committee review, and pretesting through cognitive interviews. Two rounds of interviews with 17 female survivors of intimate partner violence were conducted using a think-aloud technique and verbal probing. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis, a combination of deductive and inductive approaches. Results Issues with the BHS-TR that were uncovered in the study were classified into four categories related to general design, translation, cultural aspects, and post-trauma context. The trauma-specific issues emerged as a new category identified in this study and included concepts specific to trauma experiences. Therefore, modifications were of great importance—resulting in the scale becoming more trauma-informed. Revisions made to address identified issues improved the scale, and the process led to an Icelandic version, which appears to be semantically and conceptually equivalent to the original version; additionally, the results provided evidence of content validity. Conclusions As a cognitive interview study, it adds to the growing cognitive interviewing methodology literature. Furthermore, the results provide essential insights into the self-report response process of trauma survivors, highlighting the significance of making health-related research instruments trauma-informed.

Download Full-text

Outcomes of Primary Care for People With Dementia: What’s Important?

Innovation in Aging ◽

10.1093/geroni/igaa057.533 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 164-165

Author(s):

Laura Wray ◽

Bonnie Vest ◽

Laura Brady ◽

Christina Vair ◽

Gregory Beehler ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Older Adults ◽

Primary Care ◽

Health And Safety ◽

Limited Attention ◽

Veterans Health ◽

Cognitive Screening ◽

Health Administration ◽

People With Dementia ◽

Primary Care Teams ◽

Care Outcomes

Abstract People with dementia (PWD) typically receive most of their healthcare in primary care (PC), but neurocognitive disorders can be challenging to recognize, assess, and manage in that setting. As a result, cognitive impairment in older adults is often missed or not addressed until later stages. The result is poor management of comorbid health conditions, increased healthcare utilization, and negative outcomes for the patient and family. Further, strategies for improvement and barriers to high quality PC for PWD have received limited attention. To improve PC for PWD, it is essential to understand what care outcomes should be targeted. To address this gap, we used a qualitative approach to examine potential outcomes of PC from the perspectives of older adults, family caregivers, primary care teams, and geriatrics specialists (n=79) from two Veterans Health Administration healthcare systems. Participants were interviewed individually or in focus groups. A directed content analysis based on the adapted Donabedian model was employed and expanded to fully capture transcript content. Three main categories of outcomes were identified: Personhood (i.e., independence), Physical Health and Safety, and Quality of Life. Regardless of participant type, respondents focused on similar desired outcomes and, notably, identified outcomes as important for both patients and their broader social context (i.e., caregivers, family). Discussion will: show how findings align with work conducted in specialty and residential care; describe how challenges to attaining these outcomes in PC can be overcome; and, challenge cognitive screening recommendations for PC that are based primarily on risk/benefit analysis of medication-focused outcomes.

Download Full-text