Development of an Instrument to Assess the Perceived Effectiveness of Academic Detailing.
Development of an Instrument to Assess the Perceived Effectiveness of Academic Detailing.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/ceh.0000000000000305
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Pickard AS
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Smart MH;Monteiro AL;Saffore CD;Ruseva A;Lee TA;Fischer MA;Pickard AS
学术细化（AD）是一种有效的，以证据为基础的教育推广方法，促进临床医生的行为改变。细节设计师的反馈对项目评估很重要，但很少被系统地收集。本研究的目的是开发一种措施，捕捉细节的感知广告计划的有效性。在文献回顾和专家咨询的基础上，初步制定了一个六项五水平量表。项目的结构是有用性，可接受性，可行性，相关性，有效性的沟通，并准备改变。该措施在一个以阿片类药物为重点的AD项目中进行了试点、完善和测试，该项目包括两次访问。采用探索性因素分析评价量表结构，采用项目-项目相关、校正项目-总相关、Cronbach α和项目反应理论评价量表信度。最初的六项工具表现出单维性。该指标的Cronbach α为0.74（访视1）和0.79（访视2）;一项（相关性）是多余的（删除时α = 0.73和0.79），因此被删除。根据项目反应理论分析，与有用性、可接受性和改变准备度相关的项目显示出高项目-项目相关性（rho ≥ 0.50），提供了最多的信息，似乎作为单一量表（即“改变的可能性”）运行。与可行性和沟通相关的项目略有不同，应单独报告。访视有效性的五项详细评估（“DAVE”）工具提供了评估AD的标准化方法。鼓励进一步研究其有效性，并在其他方案和教育推广活动中更广泛地使用。
Academic detailing (AD) is an effective, evidence-based education outreach method of promoting clinician behavior change. Detailer feedback is important for program evaluation but is rarely systematically collected. The study’s objective was to develop a measure capturing the detailer’s perception of the effectiveness of an AD program. A six-item measure with a five-level scale was initially developed from the literature review and expert panel consultation. Item constructs were usefulness, acceptability, feasibility, relevance, effectiveness of communication, and readiness to change. The measure was piloted, refined, and tested during an opioid-focused AD program that included two visits. The instrument structure was evaluated using exploratory factor analysis, measure reliability was assessed using item–item correlation (rho), corrected item–total correlation, Cronbach alpha (α), and item response theory. The initial six-item instrument demonstrated unidimensionality. The Cronbach α for the measure was 0.74 (visit 1) and 0.79 (visit 2); one item (relevance) was redundant (α = 0.73 and 0.79 when deleted) and therefore dropped. Items related to usefulness, acceptability, and readiness to change displayed high item–item correlation (rho ≥ 0.50) and contributed the most information and seemed to operate as a single scale (ie, “likelihood to change”) based on item response theory analysis. Items related to feasibility and communication were slightly different constructs and should be reported separately. The five-item detailer assessment of visit effectiveness (the “DAVE”) instrument provides a standardized approach to assess AD. Further study of its validity and broader use in other programs and educational outreach activities is encouraged.