Cargando…
Revealing barriers and facilitators to use a new genetic test: comparison of three user involvement methods
We compared three common user involvement methods in revealing barriers and facilitators from intended users that might influence their use of a new genetic test. The study was part of the development of a new genetic test on the susceptibility to hand eczema for nurses. Eighty student nurses partic...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer-Verlag
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3461230/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22318407 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12687-012-0080-6 |
_version_ | 1782245053554491392 |
---|---|
author | Rhebergen, Martijn D. F. Visser, Maaike J. Verberk, Maarten M. Lenderink, Annet F. van Dijk, Frank J. H. Kezic, Sanja Hulshof, Carel T. J. |
author_facet | Rhebergen, Martijn D. F. Visser, Maaike J. Verberk, Maarten M. Lenderink, Annet F. van Dijk, Frank J. H. Kezic, Sanja Hulshof, Carel T. J. |
author_sort | Rhebergen, Martijn D. F. |
collection | PubMed |
description | We compared three common user involvement methods in revealing barriers and facilitators from intended users that might influence their use of a new genetic test. The study was part of the development of a new genetic test on the susceptibility to hand eczema for nurses. Eighty student nurses participated in five focus groups (n = 33), 15 interviews (n = 15) or questionnaires (n = 32). For each method, data were collected until saturation. We compared the mean number of items and relevant remarks that could influence the use of the genetic test obtained per method, divided by the number of participants in that method. Thematic content analysis was performed using MAXQDA software. The focus groups revealed 30 unique items compared to 29 in the interviews and 21 in the questionnaires. The interviews produced more items and relevant remarks per participant (1.9 and 8.4 pp) than focus groups (0.9 and 4.8 pp) or questionnaires (0.7 and 2.3 pp). All three involvement methods revealed relevant barriers and facilitators to use a new genetic test. Focus groups and interviews revealed substantially more items than questionnaires. Furthermore, this study suggests a preference for the use of interviews because the number of items per participant was higher than for focus groups and questionnaires. This conclusion may be valid for other genetic tests as well. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3461230 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | Springer-Verlag |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-34612302012-11-09 Revealing barriers and facilitators to use a new genetic test: comparison of three user involvement methods Rhebergen, Martijn D. F. Visser, Maaike J. Verberk, Maarten M. Lenderink, Annet F. van Dijk, Frank J. H. Kezic, Sanja Hulshof, Carel T. J. J Community Genet Original Article We compared three common user involvement methods in revealing barriers and facilitators from intended users that might influence their use of a new genetic test. The study was part of the development of a new genetic test on the susceptibility to hand eczema for nurses. Eighty student nurses participated in five focus groups (n = 33), 15 interviews (n = 15) or questionnaires (n = 32). For each method, data were collected until saturation. We compared the mean number of items and relevant remarks that could influence the use of the genetic test obtained per method, divided by the number of participants in that method. Thematic content analysis was performed using MAXQDA software. The focus groups revealed 30 unique items compared to 29 in the interviews and 21 in the questionnaires. The interviews produced more items and relevant remarks per participant (1.9 and 8.4 pp) than focus groups (0.9 and 4.8 pp) or questionnaires (0.7 and 2.3 pp). All three involvement methods revealed relevant barriers and facilitators to use a new genetic test. Focus groups and interviews revealed substantially more items than questionnaires. Furthermore, this study suggests a preference for the use of interviews because the number of items per participant was higher than for focus groups and questionnaires. This conclusion may be valid for other genetic tests as well. Springer-Verlag 2012-02-09 2012-10 /pmc/articles/PMC3461230/ /pubmed/22318407 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12687-012-0080-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2012 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Rhebergen, Martijn D. F. Visser, Maaike J. Verberk, Maarten M. Lenderink, Annet F. van Dijk, Frank J. H. Kezic, Sanja Hulshof, Carel T. J. Revealing barriers and facilitators to use a new genetic test: comparison of three user involvement methods |
title | Revealing barriers and facilitators to use a new genetic test: comparison of three user involvement methods |
title_full | Revealing barriers and facilitators to use a new genetic test: comparison of three user involvement methods |
title_fullStr | Revealing barriers and facilitators to use a new genetic test: comparison of three user involvement methods |
title_full_unstemmed | Revealing barriers and facilitators to use a new genetic test: comparison of three user involvement methods |
title_short | Revealing barriers and facilitators to use a new genetic test: comparison of three user involvement methods |
title_sort | revealing barriers and facilitators to use a new genetic test: comparison of three user involvement methods |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3461230/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22318407 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12687-012-0080-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rhebergenmartijndf revealingbarriersandfacilitatorstouseanewgenetictestcomparisonofthreeuserinvolvementmethods AT vissermaaikej revealingbarriersandfacilitatorstouseanewgenetictestcomparisonofthreeuserinvolvementmethods AT verberkmaartenm revealingbarriersandfacilitatorstouseanewgenetictestcomparisonofthreeuserinvolvementmethods AT lenderinkannetf revealingbarriersandfacilitatorstouseanewgenetictestcomparisonofthreeuserinvolvementmethods AT vandijkfrankjh revealingbarriersandfacilitatorstouseanewgenetictestcomparisonofthreeuserinvolvementmethods AT kezicsanja revealingbarriersandfacilitatorstouseanewgenetictestcomparisonofthreeuserinvolvementmethods AT hulshofcareltj revealingbarriersandfacilitatorstouseanewgenetictestcomparisonofthreeuserinvolvementmethods |