Development of an Entrustment-Supervision Assessment Tool for Pharmacy Experiential Education via Sequential Stakeholder Focus Groups

e13502 Background: While awareness of direct patient-level costs of cancer care are growing, less is known about the patient-level opportunity cost of care. Opportunity costs of care may include time spent seeking care, lost wages, lost leisure time, and other indirect costs associated with seeking care. Despite acknowledgment of the importance of considering patient opportunity costs in care treatment decisions, assessment of opportunity costs experienced by individual patients or caregivers is not routinely performed by healthcare providers in general, or oncology providers in particular. The purpose of this work was to develop an instrument, the Oncology Opportunity Cost Assessment Tool (OOCAT), to evaluate patient opportunity cost of seeking oncology care. Methods: Survey development was an iterative process with multiple rounds of stakeholder engagement. First the research team developed a list of potential opportunity cost themes informed by their own experiences. Next, we met with an established patient advisory group within the cancer center to expand this list of themes. We then conducted focus groups with patients and caregivers to explore in further depth their logistical and financial considerations related to seeking care. Findings were used to further expand the list of opportunity cost themes, with this list reviewed in real time with the focus group participants to ensure perspectives were appropriately captured. We then generated a set of survey items to represent each of the themes listed. We generated two items to represent each unique theme. The first item of the instrument sought to quantify the opportunity cost of the theme (e.g. time spent parking); the second component ascertained the patient-perceived importance of the theme using a 7-point Likert scale. Upon drafting of the initial OOCAT, we performed cognitive interviews with a random sampling of patients in order to ensure content validity and clarity of instrument items. Results: We completed 4 virtual focus groups with a total of 23 participants (17 patients and 6 caregivers) followed by cognitive interviews with 13 patients. The resulting OOCAT consists of 17 items that examine time requirements, financial implications, and logistical and quality of life challenges for both patients and caregivers associated seeking oncology care. Conclusions: The OOCAT is a 17-item instrument designed to quantify patient-level opportunity costs of seeking oncology care. Further studies work is needed to validate the OOCAT survey and assess the impact of incorporating quantified assessment of opportunity cost into decision regarding when and where to seek oncology care.

Download Full-text

OP138 Stakeholders’ Involvement When Developing A mHealth Assessment Tool

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care ◽

10.1017/s0266462319001661 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 35 (S1) ◽

pp. 31-32

Author(s):

Elisa Puigdomenech Puig ◽

Elisa Poses Ferrer ◽

Lina Masana ◽

Mireia Espallargues

Keyword(s):

Focus Groups ◽

User Experience ◽

Delphi Technique ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Clinical Effectiveness ◽

Assessment Tools ◽

Evaluation Tool ◽

Privacy And Security ◽

Safety Issues ◽

Health Apps

IntroductionDue to the specific characteristics and challenges of mobile health (mHealth) technologies there is a need to have assessment tools based on their particularities to be used by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and evaluation experts. In the development of a comprehensive and practical evaluation tool for the evaluation of mHealth solutions we aimed to include the views and opinions of key stakeholders: health professionals, developers, hospital managers, HTA agencies, patients and general public.MethodsFocus groups and an online modification of the Delphi technique are being used to discuss and agree on domains and criteria to be included in the mHealth assessment tool. Domains and criteria used for health apps evaluation were drawn from a literature review on the topic. The initial list includes 95 criteria grouped into the following domains: purpose of the app, privacy and security, clinical effectiveness, content of the intervention, user experience and usability, interoperability, expenses, impact on the organization, and legal and ethical aspects. Data coming from focus groups is currently being analyzed from a thematic and content analysis perspective.ResultsFocus groups with professionals have showed that the most important domains to be considered when evaluating health apps are those related with security, user experience, and clinical effectiveness. Some criteria were considered to be mandatory (mainly regarding safety issues), on which a first step assessment should indicate whether the app ‘pass or fails’ for the subsequent throughout assessment. Focus groups with patients will provide insight on critical aspects related to the choice, use and adherence to a health app.ConclusionsInsights from main stakeholders on the design of the tool for mHealth assessment are relevant and complementary between them. Next steps include (i) the agreement of criteria by using an online modification of the Delphi Technique and (ii) piloting of the tool.

Download Full-text

Evaluating the Linguistic Appropriateness and Cultural Sensitivity of a Self-Report System for Spanish-Speaking Patients with Cancer

Nursing Research and Practice ◽

10.1155/2014/702683 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 2014 ◽

pp. 1-13 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Cindy Tofthagen ◽

Barbara Halpenny ◽

Maribel Melendez ◽

Laura Gonzalez ◽

Veronica Sanchez Varela ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Focus Groups ◽

Cultural Sensitivity ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Healthcare Providers ◽

The United States ◽

Spanish Speakers ◽

Self Report ◽

Spanish Version ◽

Spanish Speaking ◽

Sensitivity Assessment

Spanish speakers in the United States encounter numerous communication barriers during cancer treatment. Communication-focused interventions may help Spanish speakers communicate better with healthcare providers and manage symptoms and quality of life issues (SQOL). For this study, we developed a Spanish version of the electronic self-report assessment for cancer (ESRA-C), a web-based program that helps people with cancer report, track, and manage cancer-related SQOL. Four methods were used to evaluate the Spanish version. Focus groups and cognitive interviews were conducted with 51 Spanish-speaking individuals to elicit feedback. Readability was assessed using the Fry readability formula. The cultural sensitivity assessment tool was applied by three bilingual, bicultural reviewers. Revisions were made to personalize the introduction using a patient story and photos and to simplify language. Focus group participants endorsed changes to the program in a second round of focus groups. Cultural sensitivity of the program was scored unacceptable (x¯=3.0) for audiovisual material and acceptable (x¯=3.0) for written material. Fry reading levels ranged from 4th to 10th grade. Findings from this study provide several next steps to refine ESRA-C for Spanish speakers with cancer.

Download Full-text

Development, reliability and validity of the Safe Use of Mobility Aids Checklist (SUMAC) for 4-wheeled walker use in people living with dementia

10.21203/rs.2.22127/v2 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Susan Hunter ◽

Alison Divine ◽

Humberto Omana ◽

Edward Madou ◽

Jeffrey Holmes

Keyword(s):

Focus Groups ◽

Physical Function ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Rank Order ◽

Criterion Validity ◽

Minimal Detectable Change ◽

Retest Reliability ◽

People With Dementia ◽

Mobility Aid ◽

Test Retest Reliability

Abstract Background: Balance and gait problems are common and progressive in dementia. Mobility aid use in people with dementia increases the likelihood of falls three-fold. An assessment tool to quantify mobility aid safety in people with dementia does not currently exist. The objectives of this study were: 1) to develop a tool for the evaluation of physical function and safety with use of a 4-wheeled walker in people with dementia, and 2) to evaluate its construct and criterion validity, inter-rater and test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change.Methods: Healthcare professionals (HCP) experienced in care and rehabilitation of people with dementia participated in focus groups for item generation of the new tool, entitled The Safe Use of Mobility Aid Checklist (SUMAC). The SUMAC evaluates physical function (PF) and safe use of the equipment (EQ) on nine tasks of daily life. Ten individuals with dementia using a 4-wheeled walker were recorded performing the tasks within the SUMAC. Reliability was evaluated by having five HCP score participant videos on two occasions. Inter-rater and test-retest reliability was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). Construct validity was evaluated using scores determined by a consensus panel compared to the individual HCP scores using Spearman’s rank-order correlations. Criterion validity was assessed between SUMAC-PF and the Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA) gait subscale using Spearman’s rank-order correlations. Results: Three focus groups (n=17) were completed and these generated a tool comprised of nine tasks and the components within each task that the clinicians would observe for physical function and safe use. Inter-rater reliability was statistically significant for the SUMAC-PF (ICC=0.92, 95%CI (0.81, 0.98), p<0.001) and SUMAC-EQ (ICC=0.82, 95%CI (0.54, 0.95), p<0.001). Test-retest reliability was also statistically significant for the SUMAC-PF (ICC=0.89, 95%CI (0.81, 0.94), p<0.001) and SUMAC-EQ (ICC=0.88, 95%CI (0.79, 0.93), p<0.001). The POMA gait subscale correlated strongly with the SUMAC-PF (r=0.84), but not EQ (r=0.39).Conclusions: Each of the scores of the SUMAC, physical function and safe use of the equipment, demonstrated content validity, strong inter-rater and test-retest reliability and strong criterion and concurrent validity for the assessment of mobility aid safety in people with dementia.

Download Full-text

Development, reliability and validity of the Safe Use of Mobility Aids Checklist (SUMAC) for 4-wheeled walker use in people living with dementia

10.21203/rs.2.22127/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Susan Hunter ◽

Alison Divine ◽

Humberto Omana ◽

Edward Madou ◽

Jeffrey Holmes

Keyword(s):

Focus Groups ◽

Physical Function ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Rank Order ◽

Criterion Validity ◽

Minimal Detectable Change ◽

Retest Reliability ◽

People With Dementia ◽

Mobility Aid ◽

Test Retest Reliability

Abstract Background Balance and gait problems are common and progressive in dementia. Mobility aid use in people with dementia increases the likelihood of falls three-fold. An assessment tool to quantify mobility aid safety in people with dementia does not currently exist. The objectives of this study were: 1) to develop a tool for the evaluation of physical function and safety with use of a 4-wheeled walker in people with dementia, and 2) to evaluate its construct and criterion validity, inter-rater and test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change. Methods Healthcare professionals (HCP) experienced in care and rehabilitation of people with dementia participated in focus groups for item generation of the new tool, entitled The Safe Use of Mobility Aid Checklist (SUMAC). The SUMAC evaluates physical function (PF) and safe use of the equipment (EQ) on nine tasks of daily life. Ten individuals with dementia using a 4-wheeled walker were recorded performing the tasks within the SUMAC. Reliability was evaluated by having five HCP score participant videos on two occasions. Inter-rater and test-retest reliability was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). Construct validity was evaluated using scores determined by a consensus panel compared to the individual HCP scores using Spearman’s rank-order correlations. Criterion validity was assessed between SUMAC-PF and the Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA) using Spearman’s rank-order correlations. Results Three focus groups (n=17) were completed and these generated a tool comprised of nine tasks and the components within each task that the clinicians would observe for physical function and safe use. Inter-rater reliability was statistically significant for the SUMC-PF (ICC=0.72, 95%CI (0.33-0.92), p<0.001) and SUMAC-EQ (ICC=0.40, 95%CI (0.03-0.78), p=0.020). Test-retest reliability was also statistically significant for the SUMAC-PF (ICC=0.69, 95%CI (0.45-0.83), p<0.001) and SUMAC-EQ (ICC=0.73, 95%CI (0.53,0.85), p<0.001). The POMA correlated strongly with the SUMAC-PF (r=0.84), but not EQ (r=0.39). Conclusions Each of the scores of the SUMAC, physical function and safe use of the equipment, demonstrated content validity, strong inter-rater and test-retest reliability and strong criterion and concurrent validity for the assessment of mobility aid safety in people with dementia.

Download Full-text

Qualitative Analysis of Registered Nurses’ Perceptions of Lactation Assessment Tools: Why and How They Are Completed

Journal of Human Lactation ◽

10.1177/0890334417724147 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 34 (1) ◽

pp. 32-39 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Joan Esper Kuhnly ◽

Donna J. Chapman

Keyword(s):

Focus Groups ◽

Registered Nurses ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Assessment Tools ◽

Thought Processes ◽

Hospital Policies ◽

Completion Process ◽

Nurses Perceptions ◽

Postpartum Mothers ◽

Infant Safety

Background: Although lactation assessment tools are consistently used in clinical practice, there is no evidence describing registered nurses’ perspectives regarding the purpose and thought processes involved when conducting a breastfeeding assessment. Research aim: This study aimed to explore registered nurses’ perceptions on the purpose of lactation assessment tools and the thought processes involved in completing one. Methods: Seven focus groups were held from April 2015 through July 2015, in coordination with regional and international lactation and perinatal conferences. Participants included 28 hospital-based registered nurses who routinely used a lactation assessment tool to assess postpartum mothers with healthy breastfeeding newborns. Focus groups were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and content analyzed by two lactation researchers to identify relevant themes and subthemes. Results: The analyses identified four different purposes of breastfeeding assessment tools (Teaching and Assessing Simultaneously, Infant Safety, Standardized Practice, and “It’s Your Job!”) and four themes related to the thought processes used in completing the tool (Novice vs. Expert, Real-Time vs. Recalled Documentation, Observation or Not, and “Fudging the Score”). Conclusion: Registered nurses found lactation assessment tool completion to be an essential part of their job and that it ensured infant safety, standardized care, maternal instruction, and lactation assessment. Differences in the lactation assessment tool completion process were described, based on staff expertise, workload, hospital policies, and varying degrees of compliance with established protocols. These findings provide critical insight for the development of future breastfeeding assessment tools.

Download Full-text

Developing a family resilience assessment tool for health visiting/public health nursing practice using virtual commissioning, high-fidelity simulation and focus groups

Journal of Child Health Care ◽

10.1177/1367493519864743 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 24 (2) ◽

pp. 195-206

Author(s):

David Pontin ◽

Michelle Thomas ◽

Georgina Jones ◽

Jane O’Kane ◽

Liz Wilson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Public Health ◽

Focus Groups ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Family Health ◽

Field Testing ◽

Family Resilience ◽

Assessment Instrument ◽

Public Health Nurses ◽

Virtual Commissioning ◽

Resilience Assessment

UK public health nurse assessment of family resilience is a necessary component of monitoring family health and children’s development and identifying areas for change. This research was part of an exploration of Welsh public health nurses’ understanding of ‘family resilience’ as a concept underpinning their practice. From it, the Family Resilience Assessment Instrument Tool (FRAITTM www.frait.wales/) was developed for public health nurses use. We report on a virtual commissioning process using focus groups and an immersive simulation suite to test a FRAIT prototype in a safe environment before field testing. Virtual commissioning design: Hydra-Minerva Immersive Simulation Suite – individual public health nurses presented with a multi-media scenario as they used the prototype FRAIT. Follow-up focus groups for usability insights before field testing. Virtual commissioning raised real-world issues which public health nurses discussed in focus groups. Issues were scoring, absence of information, focusing on family resilience, identifying adults caring for children, potential for use, identifying need and monitoring change, potential impact of using FRAIT and fitting it to everyday practice. Prototype testing like this allowed us to fine tune the FRAIT for field testing.

Download Full-text

Barriers and facilitators to implementing a cancer risk assessment tool (QCancer) in primary care: a qualitative study

Primary Health Care Research & Development ◽

10.1017/s1463423621000281 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 22 ◽

Author(s):

Joseph N. A. Akanuwe ◽

Sharon Black ◽

Sara Owen ◽

Aloysius Niroshan Siriwardena

Keyword(s):

Risk Assessment ◽

Primary Care ◽

General Practice ◽

Cancer Risk ◽

Focus Groups ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Barriers And Facilitators ◽

Cancer Risk Assessment ◽

Service Users ◽

Primary Care Practitioners

Abstract Aim: We aimed to explore service users’ and primary care practitioners’ perspectives on the barriers and facilitators to implementing a cancer risk assessment tool (RAT), QCancer, in general practice consultations. Background: Cancer RATs, including QCancer, are designed to estimate the chances of previously undiagnosed cancer in symptomatic individuals. Little is known about the barriers and facilitators to implementing cancer RATs in primary care consultations. Methods: We used a qualitative design, conducting semi-structured individual interviews and focus groups with a convenience sample of service users and primary care practitioners. Findings: In all, 36 participants (19 service users, 17 practitioners) living in Lincolnshire, were included in the interviews and focus groups. Before asking for their views, participants were introduced to QCancer and shown an example of how it estimated cancer risk. Participants identified barriers to implementing the tool namely: additional consultation time; unnecessary worry; potential for over-referral; practitioner scepticism; need for training on use of the tool; need for evidence of effectiveness; and need to integrate the tool in general practice systems. Participants also identified facilitators to implementing the tool as: supporting decision-making; modifying health behaviours; improving speed of referral; and personalising care. Conclusions: The barriers and facilitators identified should be considered when seeking to implement QCancer in primary care. In addition, further evidence is needed that the use of this tool improves diagnosis rates without an unacceptable increase in harm from unnecessary investigation.

Download Full-text

Expert recommendations for the design of a children’s movement competence assessment tool for use by primary school teachers

European Physical Education Review ◽

10.1177/1356336x17751358 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 25 (2) ◽

pp. 524-543

Author(s):

David Morley ◽

Thomas Van Rossum ◽

David Richardson ◽

Lawrence Foweather

Keyword(s):

Focus Groups ◽

Primary School ◽

Teaching And Learning ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Assessment Tools ◽

Competence Assessment ◽

School Teachers ◽

Primary School Teachers ◽

Multi Phase ◽

Expert Recommendations

A child’s early school years provide a crucial platform for them to develop fundamental movement skills (FMS), yet it has been acknowledged that there is a shortage of suitable FMS assessment tools for teachers to use within schools. To begin to address this shortfall, the purpose of this study was to elicit expert recommendations for the design of a FMS assessment tool for use by primary school teachers. A multi-phase research design was used, involving two scenario-guided focus groups with movement experts ( n = 8; five academics and three practitioners). Data captured in both focus groups were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Three dichotomous dilemmas emerged from the data in relation to assessing children’s movement competence: (a) Why? For research purposes or to enhance teaching and learning?; (b) How? Should the assessment setting be engineered or natural?; and (c) What? Should the detail of the assessment be complex or simple and should the nature of the tasks be static or dynamic? These findings suggest that any future development of movement competence assessment protocols for use by primary school teachers needs to consider the specific purpose and context of the assessment.

Download Full-text

Development of the Oncology Opportunity Cost Assessment Tool: Item Generation and Content Validity Testing

JCO Oncology Practice ◽

10.1200/op.21.00288 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Nathan R. Handley ◽

Adam F. Binder ◽

Arianna Heyer ◽

Rachel E. Granberg ◽

Garrison Davis ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Focus Groups ◽

Content Validity ◽

Opportunity Cost ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Medical Oncology ◽

Cost Assessment ◽

Opportunity Costs ◽

Cognitive Interviews ◽

Study Team ◽

Oncology Care

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop the Oncology Opportunity Cost Assessment Tool (OOCAT), a survey instrument to evaluate the opportunity costs patients experience when seeking medical oncology care. METHODS: Development of the OOCAT involved extensive patient engagement through both focus groups and interviews. First, the study team developed a list of opportunity cost concepts, which included patients' logistical and financial considerations related to seeking care. We conducted focus groups with patients to expand upon this list of concepts, and then developed a set of questions that incorporated all the concepts generated during the focus groups. To refine these questions, we next performed cognitive interviews with another set of patients to ensure content validity and clarity of instrument items, refining the OOCAT iteratively on the basis of feedback. RESULTS: We engaged 23 participants (17 patients and six caregivers) across four focus groups and 17 participants in cognitive interviews. Focus group participants generated 112 concepts, which resulted in an initial OOCAT with 16 questions. Cognitive interviews resulted in modification of 12 questions and addition of two questions (related to coordination of transportation and impact on home responsibilities). The final OOCAT consisted of 18 items examining time requirements for appointments, financial implications of traveling to appointments for the patient and the caregiver, and logistical and quality-of-life challenges associated with traveling for appointments. CONCLUSION: We developed the OOCAT, an instrument designed to evaluate patient-level opportunity costs of seeking medical oncology care. Further studies to validate the OOCAT are underway.

Download Full-text