Psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures for hip arthroscopic surgery
- Kemp, Joanne, Collins, Natalie, Roos, Ewa, Crossley, Kay
- Authors: Kemp, Joanne , Collins, Natalie , Roos, Ewa , Crossley, Kay
- Date: 2013
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: American Journal of Sports Medicine Vol. 41, no. 9 (2013), p. 2065-2073
- Full Text: false
- Reviewed:
- Description: Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are considered the gold standard when evaluating outcomes in a surgical population. While the psychometric properties of some PROs have been tested, the properties of newer PROs in patients undergoing hip arthroscopic surgery remain somewhat unknown. Purpose: To evaluate the reliability, validity, responsiveness, and interpretability of 5 PROs (Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score [HAGOS], Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [HOOS], Hip Outcome Score [HOS], International Hip Outcome Tool [iHOT-33], and Modified Harris Hip Score [MHHS]) in a population undergoing hip arthroscopic surgery and also to provide a recommendation of the best PROs in patients undergoing hip arthroscopic surgery. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Study participants were adults (mean age, 37 ± 11 years) who had undergone hip arthroscopic surgery 12 to 24 months previously and pain-free, healthy age-matched controls (mean age, 35 ± 11 years). Baseline characteristics including age, height, weight, waist girth, physical activity, and occupation were collected for both groups. The hip arthroscopic surgery group completed the 5 PRO questionnaires on 3 occasions, while the healthy control group completed the PRO questionnaires on 1 occasion. The reliability (test-retest reliability [intraclass correlation coefficient, or ICC] and minimal detectable change [MDC]), validity (construct validity, ability to detect a difference between groups, acceptability including floor and ceiling effects), responsiveness, and interpretability (minimal important change [MIC]) of each measure were calculated. Results: The test-retest reliability of PROs was excellent (ICC, 0.91-0.97), with an MDC of<20%. The HOOS, HAGOS, and iHOT- 33 had acceptable content validity. All PROs demonstrated construct validity and were able to detect a difference between the hip arthroscopic surgery and control groups. No measures demonstrated a floor effect; however, the MHHS and subscales relating to activities of daily living of the HOOS, HOS, and HAGOS demonstrated a ceiling effect. The HOOS, iHOT-33, and MHHS demonstrated adequate responsiveness, and the MIC for all measures was<11 points of a possible 100 points. Conclusion: The PROs of the HOOS and iHOT-33 demonstrate psychometric properties that may enable researchers and clinicians to use them with confidence in a population undergoing hip arthroscopic surgery. The psychometric properties of the MHHS, HOS, and some subscales of the HAGOS are reduced, and these PROs may be less valuable in this group. © 2013 The Author(s). National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) Health Professional Research Training (Postdoctoral) Fellowship (No. 628918).
Enhancing alcohol and other drug (AOD) screening by emergency nurses
- Kelly, David, Chan, Raymond, Plummer, Virginia
- Authors: Kelly, David , Chan, Raymond , Plummer, Virginia
- Date: 2015
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Australian Nursing and Midwifery Journal Vol. 22, no. 10 (2015), p. 49
- Full Text: false
- Reviewed:
- Description: Within Australia it is culturally acceptable to consume alcohol and it is an integral part of the Australian way of life (Australian Government 2013). The National Drug Household Survey stated that about fourfifths of Australians aged 14 or older reported they had consumed alcohol in the past year and 6.5% drank on a daily basis (2013).
Developing rights-based standards for children having tests, treatments, examinations and interventions: using a collaborative, multi-phased, multi-method and multi-stakeholder approach to build consensus
- Bray, Lucy, Carter, Bernie, Kiernan, Joann, Horowicz, Ed, Dixon, Katie, Ridley, James, Robinson, Carol, Simmons, Anna, Craske, Jennie, Sinha, Stephanie, Morton, Liza, Nafria, Begonya, Forsner, Maria, Rullander, Anna-Clara, Nilsson, Stefan, Darcy, Laura, Karlsson, Katarina, Hubbuck, Cath, Brenner, Maria, Spencer-Little, Sian, Evans, Kath, Rowland, Andrew, Hilliard, Carol, Preston, Jennifer, Leroy, Piet, Roland, Damian, Booth, Lisa, Davies, Jean, Saron, Holly, Peck, Blake
- Authors: Bray, Lucy , Carter, Bernie , Kiernan, Joann , Horowicz, Ed , Dixon, Katie , Ridley, James , Robinson, Carol , Simmons, Anna , Craske, Jennie , Sinha, Stephanie , Morton, Liza , Nafria, Begonya , Forsner, Maria , Rullander, Anna-Clara , Nilsson, Stefan , Darcy, Laura , Karlsson, Katarina , Hubbuck, Cath , Brenner, Maria , Spencer-Little, Sian , Evans, Kath , Rowland, Andrew , Hilliard, Carol , Preston, Jennifer , Leroy, Piet , Roland, Damian , Booth, Lisa , Davies, Jean , Saron, Holly , Peck, Blake
- Date: 2023
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: European Journal of Pediatrics Vol. 182, no. 10 (2023), p. 4707-4721
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Children continue to experience harm when undergoing clinical procedures despite increased evidence of the need to improve the provision of child-centred care. The international ISupport collaboration aimed to develop standards to outline and explain good procedural practice and the rights of children within the context of a clinical procedure. The rights-based standards for children undergoing tests, treatments, investigations, examinations and interventions were developed using an iterative, multi-phased, multi-method and multi-stakeholder consensus building approach. This consensus approach used a range of online and face to face methods across three phases to ensure ongoing engagement with multiple stakeholders. The views and perspectives of 203 children and young people, 78 parents and 418 multi-disciplinary professionals gathered over a two year period (2020–2022) informed the development of international rights-based standards for the care of children having tests, treatments, examinations and interventions. The standards are the first to reach international multi-stakeholder consensus on definitions of supportive and restraining holds. Conclusion: This is the first study of its kind which outlines international rights-based procedural care standards from multi-stakeholder perspectives. The standards offer health professionals and educators clear evidence-based tools to support discussions and practice changes to challenge prevailing assumptions about holding or restraining children and instead encourage a focus on the interests and rights of the child. What is Known: • Children continue to experience short and long-term harm when undergoing clinical procedures despite increased evidence of the need to improve the provision of child-centred care. • Professionals report uncertainty and tensions in applying evidence-based practice to children’s procedural care. What is New: • This is the first study of its kind which has developed international rights-based procedural care standards from multi-stakeholder perspectives. • The standards are the first to reach international multi-stakeholder consensus on definitions of supportive and restraining holds. © 2023, The Author(s). **Please note that there are multiple authors for this article therefore only the name of the first 30 including Federation University Australia affiliate “Blake Peck” is provided in this record**
- Authors: Bray, Lucy , Carter, Bernie , Kiernan, Joann , Horowicz, Ed , Dixon, Katie , Ridley, James , Robinson, Carol , Simmons, Anna , Craske, Jennie , Sinha, Stephanie , Morton, Liza , Nafria, Begonya , Forsner, Maria , Rullander, Anna-Clara , Nilsson, Stefan , Darcy, Laura , Karlsson, Katarina , Hubbuck, Cath , Brenner, Maria , Spencer-Little, Sian , Evans, Kath , Rowland, Andrew , Hilliard, Carol , Preston, Jennifer , Leroy, Piet , Roland, Damian , Booth, Lisa , Davies, Jean , Saron, Holly , Peck, Blake
- Date: 2023
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: European Journal of Pediatrics Vol. 182, no. 10 (2023), p. 4707-4721
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Children continue to experience harm when undergoing clinical procedures despite increased evidence of the need to improve the provision of child-centred care. The international ISupport collaboration aimed to develop standards to outline and explain good procedural practice and the rights of children within the context of a clinical procedure. The rights-based standards for children undergoing tests, treatments, investigations, examinations and interventions were developed using an iterative, multi-phased, multi-method and multi-stakeholder consensus building approach. This consensus approach used a range of online and face to face methods across three phases to ensure ongoing engagement with multiple stakeholders. The views and perspectives of 203 children and young people, 78 parents and 418 multi-disciplinary professionals gathered over a two year period (2020–2022) informed the development of international rights-based standards for the care of children having tests, treatments, examinations and interventions. The standards are the first to reach international multi-stakeholder consensus on definitions of supportive and restraining holds. Conclusion: This is the first study of its kind which outlines international rights-based procedural care standards from multi-stakeholder perspectives. The standards offer health professionals and educators clear evidence-based tools to support discussions and practice changes to challenge prevailing assumptions about holding or restraining children and instead encourage a focus on the interests and rights of the child. What is Known: • Children continue to experience short and long-term harm when undergoing clinical procedures despite increased evidence of the need to improve the provision of child-centred care. • Professionals report uncertainty and tensions in applying evidence-based practice to children’s procedural care. What is New: • This is the first study of its kind which has developed international rights-based procedural care standards from multi-stakeholder perspectives. • The standards are the first to reach international multi-stakeholder consensus on definitions of supportive and restraining holds. © 2023, The Author(s). **Please note that there are multiple authors for this article therefore only the name of the first 30 including Federation University Australia affiliate “Blake Peck” is provided in this record**
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »