ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2023
Reliability and validity testing of the medicines related - consultation assessment tool for assessing pharmacists' consultations.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDemonstrating a person-centred approach in a consultation is a key component of delivering high-quality healthcare. To support development of such an approach requires training underpinned by valid assessment tools. Given the lack of a suitable pharmacy-specific tool, a new global consultation skills assessment tool: the medicines related-consultation assessment tool (MR-CAT) was designed and tested.
aimThis study aimed to test the validity and reliability of the MR-CAT using psychometric methods.
methodPsychometric testing involved analysis of participants' (n = 13) assessment of fifteen pre-recorded simulated consultations using the MR-CAT. Analysis included discriminant validity testing, intrarater and interrater reliability testing for each of the five sections of the MR-CAT and for the overall global assessment of the consultation. Analysis also included internal consistency testing for the whole tool.
resultsInternal consistency for the overall global assessment of the consultation was good (Cronbach's alpha = 0.97). The MR-CAT discriminated well for the overall global assessment of the consultation (p < 0.001). Moderate to high intrarater reliability was observed for the overall global assessment of the consultation and for all five sections of the MR-CAT (rho = 0.64-0.84) in the test-retest analysis. Moderate to good interrater reliability (Kendall's W = 0.68-0.90) was observed for the overall global assessment of the consultation and for all five sections of the MR-CAT.
conclusionThe MR-CAT is a valid and reliable tool for assessing person-centred pharmacist's consultations. Moreover, its unique design means that the MR-CAT can be used in both formative and summative assessment.
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.