Cargando…
A new scale for the evaluation of clinical practice guidelines applicability: development and appraisal
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to develop the clinical practice guidelines applicability evaluation (CPGAE-V1.0) scale and to evaluate its validity and reliability. METHODS: One hundred fifty assessors were invited to rate two rounds of importance scoring of the applicability indicators by using the 5...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5918771/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29695274 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0746-5 |
_version_ | 1783317486924464128 |
---|---|
author | Li, Hui Xie, Runsheng Wang, Yangyang Xie, Xiuli Deng, Jingwen Lu, Chuanjian |
author_facet | Li, Hui Xie, Runsheng Wang, Yangyang Xie, Xiuli Deng, Jingwen Lu, Chuanjian |
author_sort | Li, Hui |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: This study aimed to develop the clinical practice guidelines applicability evaluation (CPGAE-V1.0) scale and to evaluate its validity and reliability. METHODS: One hundred fifty assessors were invited to rate two rounds of importance scoring of the applicability indicators by using the 5-point Likert scale. Approved indicators formed the CPGAE-V1.0 scale, consisting of 19 items, arranged into 4 domains. We enrolled eligible clinicians from 8 institutions to evaluate 9 clinical practice guidelines using the CPGAE-V1.0 scale. Content validity, construct validity, internal reliability, intra-rater reliability, and responsiveness were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 220 clinicians participated, and the response rate was 98.6% (217/220). The CPGAE-V1.0 scale had favorable content validity. The four-factor model produced acceptable fit indices. The scale had an excellent internal consistency and item discrimination. It could identify the degree of applicability of the different dimensions between different guidelines. In all domains, 77.8% (7/9) of CPGs in the minimum-scoring domain were concentrated in the “coordination of support” domain. CONCLUSIONS: The CPGAE-V1.0 scale is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring the applicability of CPG. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0746-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5918771 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-59187712018-04-30 A new scale for the evaluation of clinical practice guidelines applicability: development and appraisal Li, Hui Xie, Runsheng Wang, Yangyang Xie, Xiuli Deng, Jingwen Lu, Chuanjian Implement Sci Research BACKGROUND: This study aimed to develop the clinical practice guidelines applicability evaluation (CPGAE-V1.0) scale and to evaluate its validity and reliability. METHODS: One hundred fifty assessors were invited to rate two rounds of importance scoring of the applicability indicators by using the 5-point Likert scale. Approved indicators formed the CPGAE-V1.0 scale, consisting of 19 items, arranged into 4 domains. We enrolled eligible clinicians from 8 institutions to evaluate 9 clinical practice guidelines using the CPGAE-V1.0 scale. Content validity, construct validity, internal reliability, intra-rater reliability, and responsiveness were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 220 clinicians participated, and the response rate was 98.6% (217/220). The CPGAE-V1.0 scale had favorable content validity. The four-factor model produced acceptable fit indices. The scale had an excellent internal consistency and item discrimination. It could identify the degree of applicability of the different dimensions between different guidelines. In all domains, 77.8% (7/9) of CPGs in the minimum-scoring domain were concentrated in the “coordination of support” domain. CONCLUSIONS: The CPGAE-V1.0 scale is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring the applicability of CPG. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0746-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-04-25 /pmc/articles/PMC5918771/ /pubmed/29695274 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0746-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Li, Hui Xie, Runsheng Wang, Yangyang Xie, Xiuli Deng, Jingwen Lu, Chuanjian A new scale for the evaluation of clinical practice guidelines applicability: development and appraisal |
title | A new scale for the evaluation of clinical practice guidelines applicability: development and appraisal |
title_full | A new scale for the evaluation of clinical practice guidelines applicability: development and appraisal |
title_fullStr | A new scale for the evaluation of clinical practice guidelines applicability: development and appraisal |
title_full_unstemmed | A new scale for the evaluation of clinical practice guidelines applicability: development and appraisal |
title_short | A new scale for the evaluation of clinical practice guidelines applicability: development and appraisal |
title_sort | new scale for the evaluation of clinical practice guidelines applicability: development and appraisal |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5918771/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29695274 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0746-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lihui anewscalefortheevaluationofclinicalpracticeguidelinesapplicabilitydevelopmentandappraisal AT xierunsheng anewscalefortheevaluationofclinicalpracticeguidelinesapplicabilitydevelopmentandappraisal AT wangyangyang anewscalefortheevaluationofclinicalpracticeguidelinesapplicabilitydevelopmentandappraisal AT xiexiuli anewscalefortheevaluationofclinicalpracticeguidelinesapplicabilitydevelopmentandappraisal AT dengjingwen anewscalefortheevaluationofclinicalpracticeguidelinesapplicabilitydevelopmentandappraisal AT luchuanjian anewscalefortheevaluationofclinicalpracticeguidelinesapplicabilitydevelopmentandappraisal AT lihui newscalefortheevaluationofclinicalpracticeguidelinesapplicabilitydevelopmentandappraisal AT xierunsheng newscalefortheevaluationofclinicalpracticeguidelinesapplicabilitydevelopmentandappraisal AT wangyangyang newscalefortheevaluationofclinicalpracticeguidelinesapplicabilitydevelopmentandappraisal AT xiexiuli newscalefortheevaluationofclinicalpracticeguidelinesapplicabilitydevelopmentandappraisal AT dengjingwen newscalefortheevaluationofclinicalpracticeguidelinesapplicabilitydevelopmentandappraisal AT luchuanjian newscalefortheevaluationofclinicalpracticeguidelinesapplicabilitydevelopmentandappraisal |