Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34717771›Full record

ArticleBMC psychology2021

Acceptability and face validity of two mental health screening tools for use in the routine surgical setting.

Kate E McBride, Daniel Steffens, Tim Lambert, Nick Glozier, Rachael Roberts, Michael J Solomon

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kate E McBrideRPA Institute of Academic Surgery (IAS), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and University of Sydney, PO Box M157, Sydney, NSW, Australia. kate.mcbride@health.nsw.gov.au.
Daniel SteffensSydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Tim LambertSydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Nick GlozierSydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Rachael RobertsRPA Institute of Academic Surgery (IAS), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and University of Sydney, PO Box M157, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Michael J SolomonRPA Institute of Academic Surgery (IAS), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and University of Sydney, PO Box M157, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPreoperative assessment of mental health rarely occurs within routine surgery. Any screening tool selected to form part of this process must be deemed practical, acceptable and valid by clinicians and consumers alike. This study aims to assess the acceptability and face validity of two existing mental health screening tools to select one for further development and use in the routine surgical setting.

methodsA survey of clinicians and consumers was conducted from October 2020 to March 2021 at a tertiary hospital in Sydney, Australia. Using a Likert scale (1-5, lowest to highest rating), the clinicians evaluated four domains for acceptability and two for validity (six overall) and the consumers four domains for acceptability and one for validity (five overall) on the preoperative use of the amended Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) and the Somatic and Psychological Health Report-12 (SPHERE-12). Consensus was achieved through a rating of 4 or 5 being given by 70% or more of participants with domains able to remain unchanged. Free text responses were analysed into themes.

resultsA total of 73 participants (51 clinicians; 22 consumers) were included. The K10 received consensus scores (≥ 70%) in four out of six domains for clinicians (4/4 acceptability; 0/2 validity), and all five domains for consumers (4/4 acceptability; 1/1 validity). The SPHERE-12 received consensus scores (≥ 70%) in three domains for clinicians (3/4 acceptability; 0/2 validity), and three domains for consumers (3/4 acceptability; 0/1 validity). Six qualitative themes were described including (1) amendments to tool structure and language; (2) scale response options; (3) difficulty with somatic questions; (4) practicality and familiarity with K10; (5) challenges for specific patient cohorts and (6) timing considerations for patients.

conclusionAdequate acceptability was established for the K10. However further development is required to strengthen its validity for this specific surgical cohort and purpose. Future research to determine the feasibility and acceptability of implementing and using the K10 in the routine surgical setting is now needed.

Indexed as

Mental HealthStress, PsychologicalHumansMass ScreeningReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesAcceptabilityFace validityMental illnessPreoperative screeningSurgery

Identifiers

PMID34717771
PMCPMC8556895

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.