2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Operationalization of the Brief ICF Core Set for Hearing Loss: An ICF-Based e-Intake Tool in Clinical Otology and Audiology Practice

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

          Abstract

          Objectives:

          According to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), functioning reflects the interplay between an individual’s body structures and functions, activities, participation, environmental, and personal factors. To be useful in clinical practice, these concepts need to be operationalized into a practical and integral instrument. The Brief ICF Core Set for Hearing Loss (CSHL) provides a minimum standard for the assessment of functioning in adults with hearing loss. The objective of the present study was to operationalize the Brief CSHL into a digital intake tool that could be used in the otology–audiology practice for adults with ear and hearing problems as part of their intake assessment.

          Design:

          A three-step approach was followed: (1) Selecting and formulating questionnaire items and response formats, using the 27 categories of the Brief CSHL as a basis. Additional categories were selected based on relevant literature and clinical expertise. Items were selected from existing, commonly used disease-specific questionnaires, generic questionnaires, or the WHO’s official descriptions of ICF categories. The response format was based on the existing item’s response categories or on the ICF qualifiers. (2) Carrying out an expert survey and a pilot study (using the three-step test interview. Relevant stakeholders and patients were asked to comment on the relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility of the items. Results were discussed in the project group, and items were modified based on consensus. (3) Integration of the intake tool into a computer-based system for use in clinical routine.

          Results:

          The Brief CSHL was operationalized into 62 items, clustered into six domains: (1) general information, including reason for visit, sociodemographic, and medical background; (2) general body functions; (3) ear and hearing structures and functions; (4) activities and participation (A&P); (5) environmental factors (EF); and (6) personal factors (mastery and coping). Based on stakeholders’ responses, the instructions of the items on A&P and EF were adapted. The three-step test interview showed that the tool had sufficient content validity but that some items on EF were redundant. Overall, the stakeholders and patients indicated that the intake tool was relevant and had a logical and clear structure. The tool was integrated in an online portal.

          Conclusions:

          In the current study, an ICF-based e-intake tool was developed that aims to screen self-reported functioning problems in adults with an ear/hearing problem. The relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility of the originally proposed item list was supported, although the stakeholder and patient feedback resulted into some changes of the tool on item-level. Ultimately, the functioning information obtained with the tool could be used to promote patient-centered ear and hearing care taking a biopsychosocial perspective into account.

          Related collections

          Most cited references80

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

          Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study

            Background Content validity is the most important measurement property of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) and the most challenging to assess. Our aims were to: (1) develop standards for evaluating the quality of PROM development; (2) update the original COSMIN standards for assessing the quality of content validity studies of PROMs; (3) develop criteria for what constitutes good content validity of PROMs, and (4) develop a rating system for summarizing the evidence on a PROM’s content validity and grading the quality of the evidence in systematic reviews of PROMs. Methods An online 4-round Delphi study was performed among 159 experts from 21 countries. Panelists rated the degree to which they (dis)agreed to proposed standards, criteria, and rating issues on 5-point rating scales (‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’), and provided arguments for their ratings. Results Discussion focused on sample size requirements, recording and field notes, transcribing cognitive interviews, and data coding. After four rounds, the required 67% consensus was reached on all standards, criteria, and rating issues. After pilot-testing, the steering committee made some final changes. Ten criteria for good content validity were defined regarding item relevance, appropriateness of response options and recall period, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility of the PROM. Discussion The consensus-based COSMIN methodology for content validity is more detailed, standardized, and transparent than earlier published guidelines, including the previous COSMIN standards. This methodology can contribute to the selection and use of high-quality PROMs in research and clinical practice. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The structure of coping.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ear Hear
                Ear Hear
                AUD
                Ear and Hearing
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (Hagerstown, MD )
                0196-0202
                1538-4667
                Nov-Dec 2020
                17 April 2020
                : 41
                : 6
                : 1533-1544
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Ear & Hearing, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam, Netherlands
                [2 ]Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence: Lisette M. van Leeuwen, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Ear & Hearing, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, de Boelelaan 1118, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: lm.vanleeuwen@ 123456amsterdamumc.nl
                Article
                00011
                10.1097/AUD.0000000000000867
                7722460
                33136629
                5069b633-d679-49cd-afd8-5813e4960792
                Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Ear & Hearing is published on behalf of the American Auditory Society, by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

                History
                : 12 November 2018
                : 15 January 2020
                Categories
                Research Articles
                Custom metadata
                TRUE
                T

                clinical oto-audiology practice,content validation,functioning,icf core sets for hearing loss,intake,self-reported diagnostic screening tool

                Comments

                Comment on this article