ArticlePloS one2024
Patient knowledge in anaesthesia: Psychometric development of the RAKQ-The Rotterdam anaesthesia Knowledge questionnaire.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The transition from in-person to digital preoperative patient education requires effective methods for evaluating patients' understanding of the perioperative process, risks, and instructions to ensure informed consent. A knowledge questionnaire covering different anaesthesia techniques and instructions could fulfil this need. We constructed a set of items covering common anaesthesia techniques requiring informed consent and developed the Rotterdam Anaesthesia Knowledge Questionnaire (RAKQ) using a structured approach and Item Response Theory. A team of anaesthetists and educational experts developed the initial set of 60 multiple-choice items, ensuring content and face validity. Next, based on exploratory factor analysis, we identified seven domains: General Anaesthesia-I (regarding what to expect), General Anaesthesia-II (regarding the risks), Spinal Anaesthesia, Epidural Anaesthesia, Regional Anaesthesia, Procedural sedation and analgesia, and Generic Items. This itemset was filled out by 577 patients in the Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, and Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands. Based on factor loadings (≥0.25) and considering clinical relevance this initial item set was reduced to 50 items, distributed over the seven domains. Each domain was processed to produce a separate questionnaire. Through an iterative process of item selection to ensure that the questionnaires met the criteria for Item Response Theory modelling, 40 items remained in the definitive set of seven questionnaires. Finally, we developed an Item Response Theory model for each questionnaire and evaluated its reliability. 1-PL and 2-PL models were chosen based on best model fit. No item misfit (S-χ2, p<0.001 = misfit) was detected in the final models. The newly developed RAKQ allows practitioners to assess their patients' knowledge before consultation to better address knowledge gaps during consultation. Moreover, they can decide whether the level of knowledge is sufficient to obtain digital informed consent without face-to-face education. Researchers can use the RAKQ to compare new methods of patient education with traditional methods.
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.