ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
Improving Clarity and Interpretability of Items in a Bilingual Index of Propensity to Integrate Research Evidence Into Clinical Decision-Making in Rehabilitation.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Improving Clarity and Interpretability of Items in a Bilingual Index of Propensity to Integrate Research Evidence Into Clinical Decision-Making in Rehabilitation.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleClear, interpretable measures that account for linguistic differences are critical to accurately assess rehabilitation clinicians' propensity to integrate research evidence into clinical decision-making. AIMS AND
objectivesTo contribute evidence for the clarity and interpretability of a new five-item bilingual multidimensional index of a rehabilitation clinician's propensity to integrate research evidence into clinical decision-making.
methodsThis study was conducted in three sequential steps: (1) We conducted a focus group with occupational therapists, physical therapists, and researchers to review the items and response options for clarity, consistency, and interval properties and agree on equivalency in English and French. (2) We conducted cognitive interviews whereby clinicians elaborated on their interpretation of the item, comprehensibility of items, and appropriateness of response options. Accepted modifications were integrated and tested with subsequent participants. (3) We conducted an online survey to validate the English and French equivalency of response options on a 0-100 scale.
resultsDuring the qualitative revision process (one focus group with seven participants followed by 27 interviews), the index was revised 12 times with substantial modifications to the use of research evidence and attitudes items.
conclusionThis study increases the clinical relevance and reduces measurement error of this brief index which can inform on individual or organizational factors influencing a clinician's propensity of integrating research evidence into decision-making and ultimately improve rehabilitation outcomes.
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.