scholarly journals Exploring the utility of the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale with general practitioners and physiotherapists in the context of osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional observational study

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel William O'Brien ◽  
Valerie Wright St Clair ◽  
Richard Siegert ◽  
Sandra Bassett
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Principal Factor ◽  
Attitudes And Beliefs ◽  
Design Data ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Principal Factor Analysis ◽  
Treatment Beliefs

Abstract Background Conservative treatments for hip and knee joint osteoarthritis are underused despite the known benefits. Adherence to conservative treatments is poor and affected by people’s health, illness and treatment beliefs. Clinicians’ beliefs can also affect the advice and education given to patients. Few studies have explored general practitioners’ (GPs; primary care physicians) and physiotherapists’ osteoarthritis-related health, illness and treatment beliefs. In addition, limited questionnaires are available to explore this phenomenon. This study aimed to identify if GPs and physiotherapists had beliefs about osteoarthritis that fit better with biomedical or biopsychosocial models, and explore the utility of the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS-PT) adapted for osteoarthritis. Methods This study used a cross-sectional observational design. Data were collected anonymously from GPs and physiotherapists using an online survey. The survey included a study-specific demographic and occupational characteristics questionnaire and the PABS-PT questionnaire adapted for osteoarthritis. All data were analysed using descriptive statistics. PABS-PT data also underwent principal factor analysis. Results In total, 295 clinicians (87 GPs, 208 physiotherapists) participated in this study. The principal factor analysis identified two factors or subscales (biomedical and behavioural), with Cronbach’s alphas of 0.84 and 0.44, respectively. Participants scored higher on the behavioural (3.85) than the biomedical (2.78) beliefs subscale. Conclusions The results suggest clinicians’ osteoarthritis beliefs are broadly more behavioural (biopsychosocial) than biomedical in orientation. However, the poor internal consistency of the behavioural subscale suggests the PABS-PT is not suitable for adaptation for osteoarthritis.

scholarly journals Can the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale be adapted for use in the context of osteoarthritis with general practitioners and physiotherapists?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel William O'Brien ◽  
Sandra Bassett ◽  
Valerie Wright St Clair ◽  
Richard Siegert
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Internal Consistency ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Principal Factor ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Attitudes And Beliefs ◽  
Principal Factor Analysis ◽  
Pain Beliefs

Abstract Background: Conservative, first-line treatments (exercise, education and weight-loss if appropriate) for hip and knee joint osteoarthritis are underused despite the known benefits. Clinicians’ beliefs can affect the advice and education given to patients, in turn, this can influence the uptake of treatment. In New Zealand, most conservative OA management is prescribed by general practitioners (GPs; primary care physicians) and physiotherapists. Few questionnaires have been designed to measure GPs’ and physiotherapists’ osteoarthritis-related health, illness and treatment beliefs. This study aimed to identify if a questionnaire about low back pain beliefs, the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS-PT), can be adapted to assess GP and physiotherapists’ beliefs about osteoarthritis. Methods: This study used a cross-sectional observational design. Data were collected anonymously from GPs and physiotherapists using an online survey. The survey included a study-specific demographic and occupational characteristics questionnaire and the PABS-PT questionnaire adapted for osteoarthritis. All data were analysed using descriptive statistics, and the PABS-PT data underwent principal factor analysis. Results: In total, 295 clinicians (87 GPs, 208 physiotherapists) participated in this study. The principal factor analysis identified two factors or subscales (categorised as biomedical and behavioural), with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.84 and 0.44, respectively. Conclusions: The biomedical subscale of the PABS-PT appears appropriate for adaptation for use in the context of osteoarthritis, but the low internal consistency of the behavioural subscale suggests this subscale is not currently suitable. Future research should consider the inclusion of additional items to the behavioural subscale to improve internal consistency or look to develop a new, osteoarthritis-specific questionnaire.

scholarly journals Can the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale be adapted for use in the context of osteoarthritis with general practitioners and physiotherapists?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel William O'Brien ◽  
Sandra Bassett ◽  
Valerie Wright St Clair ◽  
Richard Siegert
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Internal Consistency ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Principal Factor ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Attitudes And Beliefs ◽  
Principal Factor Analysis ◽  
Pain Beliefs

Abstract Background: Conservative, first-line treatments (exercise, education and weight-loss if appropriate) for hip and knee joint osteoarthritis are underused despite the known benefits. Clinicians’ beliefs can affect the advice and education given to patients, in turn, this can influence the uptake of treatment. In New Zealand, most conservative OA management is prescribed by general practitioners (GPs; primary care physicians) and physiotherapists. Few questionnaires have been designed to measure GPs’ and physiotherapists’ osteoarthritis-related health, illness and treatment beliefs. This study aimed to identify if a questionnaire about low back pain beliefs, the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physiotherapists (PABS-PT), can be adapted to assess GP and physiotherapists’ beliefs about osteoarthritis.Methods: This study used a cross-sectional observational design. Data were collected anonymously from GPs and physiotherapists using an online survey. The survey included a study-specific demographic and occupational characteristics questionnaire and the PABS-PT questionnaire adapted for osteoarthritis. All data were analysed using descriptive statistics, and the PABS-PT data underwent principal factor analysis. Results: In total, 295 clinicians (87 GPs, 208 physiotherapists) participated in this study. The principal factor analysis identified two factors or subscales (categorised as biomedical and behavioural), with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.84 and 0.44, respectively. Conclusions: The biomedical subscale of the PABS-PT appears appropriate for adaptation for use in the context of osteoarthritis, but the low internal consistency of the behavioural subscale suggests this subscale is not currently suitable. Future research should consider the inclusion of additional items to the behavioural subscale to improve internal consistency or look to develop a new, osteoarthritis-specific questionnaire.

Use of principal factor analysis to generate a corn silage fermentative quality index to rank well- or poorly preserved forages

2015 ◽  
Vol 96 (5) ◽  
pp. 1686-1696 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Gallo ◽  
Gianluca Giuberti ◽  
Sara Bruschi ◽  
Paola Fortunati ◽  
Francesco Masoero
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Quality Index ◽  
Principal Factor ◽  
Corn Silage ◽  
Principal Factor Analysis

scholarly journals Physician Perceptions and Beliefs about Generating and Providing a Clinical Summary of the Office Visit

2015 ◽  
Vol 06 (03) ◽  
pp. 577-590 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.Y. Ting ◽  
M. Healey ◽  
S.R. Lipsitz ◽  
H. Ramelson ◽  
V. Suric ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Office Visit ◽  
Meaningful Use ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Physician Perceptions ◽  
Incentive Program ◽  
Negative Beliefs ◽  
Negative Effect

Summary Background: A core measure of the meaningful use of EHR incentive program is the generation and provision of the clinical summary of the office visit, or the after visit summary (AVS), to patients. However, little research has been conducted on physician perceptions and beliefs about the AVS. Objective: Evaluate physician perceptions and beliefs about the AVS and the effect of the AVS on workload, patient outcomes, and the care the physician delivers. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey of physicians at two academic medical centers (AMCs) in the northeast who are participating in the meaningful use EHR incentive program. Results: Of the 1 795 physicians at both AMCs participating in the incentive program, 853 completed the survey for a response rate of 47.5%. Eighty percent of the respondents reported that the AVS was easy (very easy or quite easy or somewhat easy) to generate and provide to patients. Nonetheless, more than three-fourths of the respondents reported a negative effect of generating and providing the AVS on workload of office staff (78%) and workload of physicians (76%).Primary care physicians had more positive beliefs about the effect of the AVS on patient outcomes than specialists (p<0.001) and also had more positive beliefs about the effect of the AVS on the care they delivered than specialists (p<0.001). Conclusions: Achieving the core meaningful use measure of generating and providing the AVS was easy for physicians but it did not necessarily translate into positive beliefs about the effect of the AVS on patient outcomes or the care the physician delivered. Physicians also had negative beliefs about the effect of the AVS on workload. To promote positive beliefs among physicians around the AVS, organizations should obtain physician input into the design and implementation of the AVS and develop strategies to mitigate its negative impacts on workload. Citation: Emani S, , Ting DY, Healey M, Lipsitz SR, Ramelson H, Suric V, Bates DW. Physician perceptions and beliefs about generating and providing a clinical summary of the office visit. Appl Clin Inform 2015; 6: 577–590http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2015-04-RA-0043

A robust version of principal factor analysis

COMPSTAT ◽  
2000 ◽  
pp. 385-390 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Pison ◽  
P. J. Rousseeuw ◽  
P. Filzmoser ◽  
C. Croux
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Principal Factor ◽  
Principal Factor Analysis ◽  
Robust Version

scholarly journals 4024 Theory and Scale Development for Cancer-Related Self-Efficacy in Partners of Breast Cancer Survivors

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (s1) ◽  
pp. 149-149
Author(s):  
Andrea Cohee ◽  
Claire Draucker ◽  
Patrick Monahan ◽  
Victoria Champion
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Construct Validity ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Internal Consistency ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Fear Of Recurrence ◽  
Cross Sectional

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Specific aims are to: (Qualitative aim) Develop a new measure of cancer-related self-efficacy in partners (BCSES-P) and obtain feedback on the items (Quantitative) Evaluate the psychometric properties of the BCSES-P including: dimensionality, factor analysis, and construct validity assessing the relationships posited METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: 2-Phase Approach: 1) Item development and 1) Item testing Phase 1 Stage 1: Literature review to identify additional covariates Stage 2: Focus groups and individual interviews to determine partners’ needs Sample size: 20 partners (18 years of age or older, identifying as being in a committed relationship with a BCS) Design: cross-sectional, qualitative interviews Stage 3: Develop candidate items Stage 4: Cognitive interviews Stage 5: Finalize items with research team Phase 2 Preliminary psychometric testing Dimensionality Internal consistency reliability Construct validity Sample size: 150 partners Design: cross-sectional, online survey RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The BCSES-P will be unidimensional as assessed by exploratory factor analysis. The BCSES-P will demonstrate an internal consistency coefficient of 0.70 or above. Construct validity of the BCSES-P will be demonstrated by support of the following theoretical relationships: Cancer-related self-efficacy will be positively related to marital satisfaction and sexual functioning (social well-being) and the distal outcome, overall QoL. Cancer-related self-efficacy will be negatively related to fatigue (physical well-being), fear of recurrence, depression, and anxiety (psychological well-being). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Findings will guide intervention development to improve partners’ quality of life The BCSES-P will be the first scale to measure partners’ cancer-related self-efficacy. This study will highlight a holistic approach to studying the long-term effects of breast cancer on partners.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document