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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rhebergen, Martijn D. F., Visser, Maaike J., Verberk, Maarten M., Lenderink, Annet F., van Dijk, Frank J. H., Kezic, Sanja, Hulshof, Carel T. J.
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