ArticleBMC primary care2022
Validation of a modified questionnaire to assess Ukrainian Family Physicians' readiness to implement the evidence-based screening recommendations into their clinical practice, using a mixed method study.
Article in BMC primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUkrainian Family Doctors' knowledge and readiness for the implementation of new guidelines recommendations into practice has to be evaluated and taken into consideration, meanwhile they often use the old protocols of annual checkups. This study aimed to perform a linguistic and cultural validation of Ukrainian adopted questionnaire designed on the German prototype "Readiness of general practitioners to recommend and implement evidence-based screening recommendations questionnaire".
methodsThis was a mixed method study. The English version of the original German prototype questionnaire was translated into Ukrainian with forward-backward method. Additionally Ukrainian version was modified by including an extra questions about evidence based screening of cardiovascular risks, infectious diseases, type 2 diabetes mellitus, depression, and some old-fashioned annual checkups which are still commonly used in routine family doctors' practice. During the face validation process, 10 practicing general practitioners assessed all the items in the questionnaire as adequately structured, grammatically correct, and understandable. During qualitative part of content validation process 11 experts found and corrected some grammatical errors, indicated that items of the questionnaire were comprehensible and related to Ukrainian culture. During the quantitative part of content validation process experts accessed 5 of 6 items as essential, relevant, and clear. Internal consistency of the items, assessed by using Cronbach's alpha method was acceptable. To access how stable can be results provided by the questionnaire, test-retest reliability was performed, where 19 general practitioners filled in the same questionnaire twice over a period of two weeks.
resultsIn our study CVR > 0.79 and CVI > 0.59 were acceptable. The internal consistency was evaluated by using Cronbach's alpha method and had to be above 0.7. According to the test-retest reliability results of weighted kappa and Cohen's kappa coefficients, test-retest agreement of the questionnaire was moderate for 29%, substantial for 38%, and almost perfect for 5% of the items (p ≤ 0.05). Kappa coefficients were not computed for 10% of items as there was no variability in the assessments.
conclusionsThe Ukrainian version of the questionnaire can be used for the assessment Ukrainian Family Doctor's readiness to implement the evidence-based screening recommendations into their clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.