Search

We identified evidence from item response theory (IRT) to examine a German translation of the Interprofessional Facilitation Scale (IPFS). The IPFS was administered to n = 130 mixed-health profession participants in a post-interprofessional education practicum questionnaire. We used IRT analyses to examine the following three aspects of the IPFS: (a) general factor strength, (b) subscale usability, and (c) item bias. First, findings indicate a strong, general factor underlying the IPFS that supports unidimensional interpretations. Second, findings supported IPFS overall reliability, but failed to support subscale reliabilities. Third, item bias assessment using a comparator-French sample (n = 89) indicated insubstantial differences across German and French samples. Taken together, we find sufficient evidence to support the IPFS-German translation's application in IPE contexts and unidimensional interpretations. Subscores are not advisable for interpretation, and future researchers should aim to further inspect potential item bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Mental health literacy is receiving increasing research attention due to growing concerns for mental health globally. Among children, teachers have recently been recognized as playing a vital role in the recognition and reporting of potential mental health issues. Methods: A nationally sampled cross-section of teachers was surveyed to examine the discriminant validity of the mental health literacy measure across levels of teaching. A survey collected a total of n=369 teacher responses in Switzerland (Kindergarten = 76, Primary = 210, Secondary = 83). Item response theory (IRT) analyses were conducted. Results: Inspection of psychometric properties indicated removal of two weak performing items. The 15-item measure exhibited a significant mean difference, such that class-responsibility function scored higher (M= 2.86, SD = .45) than non-responsible function (M= 2.68, SD = .45) teachers [t(309) = -2.20, p = .01]. It also exhibited a significant mean difference, such that more subjective experienced scored higher (M= 2.86, SD = .45) than less subjective experienced (M= 2.68, SD = .45) teachers [t(210) = -8.66, p < .01]. Discussion: Hypotheses regarding age and role tenure were in the expected direction, but non-significant. The MHL measure for teachers demonstrated sound measurement properties supporting usage across teaching levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research attention has been paid to providing evidence on undergraduate/pre-licensure health sciences students' interprofessional education competency requirements, placements, and attainment. Although interprofessional facilitator training has been identified as critical to interprofessional learner outcomes, scant research has examined student perceptions of valued facilitator competencies. This short report investigates students' views of important attributes for interprofessional facilitation using a cross-sectional observation-survey design. A survey was conducted in a pre-licensure sample of n = 343 students (response rate 68%) from four health professions (nursing, midwifery, physical therapy, and occupational therapy). After completing a semester-long interprofessional education course, students completed a survey vis-à-vis rating the importance of interprofessional facilitator competency with regard to 25 abilities, 12 teacher profiles, and 10 characteristics. Taken together, results indicate the need for a multifaceted view of interprofessional facilitator competencies. Our findings will inform training targeted to specific facilitator competencies, as needed for optimizing the delivery of interprofessional education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Parents often use digital media to search for information related to their children's health. As the quantity and quality of digital sources meant specifically for parents expand, parents' digital health literacy is increasingly important to process the information they retrieve. One of the earliest developed and widely used instruments to assess digital health literacy is the self-reported eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS). However, the eHEALS has not been psychometrically validated in a sample of parents. Given the inconsistency of the eHEALS underlying factor structure across previous reports, it is particularly important for validation to occur.Objective: This study aimed to determine the factor structure of the German eHEALS measure in a sample of parents by adopting classic and modern psychometric approaches. In particular, this study sought to identify the eHEALS validity as a unidimensional index as well as the viability for potential subscales.Methods: A cross-sectional design was used across two purposive sampling frames: online and paper administrations. Responses were collected between January 2018 and May 2018 from 703 Swiss-German parents. In addition to determining the sampling characteristics, we conducted exploratory factor analysis of the eHEALS by considering its ordinal structure using polychoric correlations. This analysis was performed separately for online-based and paper-based responses to examine the general factor strength of the eHEALS as a unidimensional index. Furthermore, item response theory (IRT) analyses were conducted by fitting eHEALS to a bifactor model to further inspect its unidimensionality and subscale viability.Results: Parents in both samples were predominantly mothers (622/703, 88.5%), highly educated (538/703, 76.9%), of Swiss nationality (489/703, 71.8%), and living with a partner (692/703, 98.4%). Factor analyses of the eHEALS indicated the presence of a strong general factor across both paper and online samples, and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test indicated that the eHEALS total sum score was not significantly different between the paper and online samples (P=.12). Finally, the IRT analyses indicated negligible multidimensionality, insufficient subscale reliability after accounting for the eHEALS general factor, and a reduced subset of items that could serve as a unidimensional index of the eHEALS across the paper and online samples.Conclusions: The German eHEALS evidenced good psychometric properties in a parent-specific study sample. Factor analyses indicated a strong general factor across purposively distinct sample frames (online and paper). IRT analyses validated the eHEALS as a unidimensional index while failing to find support for subscale usage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims of the Study: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) indicators are patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PROs are defined as any report of the status of a patient's health condition or health behaviour that comes directly from the patient, without interpretation of the patient's response by a clinician or anyone else. Despite Swiss national bodies (FOPH, FMH) recognising the potential of PRO measures (PROMs) for improving the health system, no consensus has yet emerged regarding a generic PROM framework or specific domains for practical uptake. The aim of the present digital Delphi study was to generate a consensual Swiss expert opinion on a generic PROM framework, measurement domains and items from a validated instrument (PROMIS [Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System]) as well as on the role and implementation of PROs in the Swiss healthcare system via PRO consensus statements., Methods: A 4-round digital Delphi study was conducted among Swiss PRO stakeholders. A total of n = 21 Swiss PROM stakeholders completed round 1 surveys on the PROM framework. During the stakeholder meeting, n = 11 stakeholders completed round 2 and round 3 surveys pertaining to measurement domains and items, respectively. In-meeting key questions and discussion items were extracted, consolidated into statements and subjected to consensus voting in a round 4, post-meeting survey. Consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement., Results: Pre-meeting, agreement was reached for the tripartite framework of physical, mental and social health (95-100%). During the meeting, agreement was reached on all seven measurement domains of a generic PROM (PROMIS-29), ranging from 80% (Anxiety, Sleep Disturbance) to 100% (Pain Interference, Depression, Ability to Participate in Social Roles). Consensus was also reached for all PROMIS-29 items, with average domain consensus ranging from 83% (Sleep Disturbance, Ability to Participate in Social Roles) to 100% (Depression). Finally, four post-meeting consensus statements regarding PROs in Switzerland reached agreement., Conclusions: A Delphi method can help identify areas of need regarding PROMs in Switzerland. The current study identified a generic PROM as a missing quality indicator for the Swiss national health system's value. A pre-meeting informational briefing, expert presentations and moderation supported three voting rounds to help identify PROMIS-29 as a PROM framework (round 1), measurement domains (round 2) and items (round 3) as a basis for further validation research. The empirical agreement among diverse stakeholders supports broad consensus towards preliminary feasibility of integrating generic PROMs into the Swiss health system based on content relevance.