Content validation of the COST for patient questionnaire (COPAQ) for patients with low back pain: a qualitative study.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-11-05 DOI:10.1017/S0266462324000515
Layla Bakaa, Fatima Al-Mosawi, Nora Bakaa, Lisandra Almeida de Oliveira, Maude Laberge, Luciana G Macedo
{"title":"Content validation of the COST for patient questionnaire (COPAQ) for patients with low back pain: a qualitative study.","authors":"Layla Bakaa, Fatima Al-Mosawi, Nora Bakaa, Lisandra Almeida de Oliveira, Maude Laberge, Luciana G Macedo","doi":"10.1017/S0266462324000515","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The costs of low back pain (LBP) are complex and difficult to estimate. This study aims to adapt the Cost for Patients Questionnaire (CoPaQ) for use in LBP populations.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In a cross-sectional qualitative study, we conducted cognitive interviews to assess the CoPaQ's suitability for addressing costs related to LBP. Three groups of participants were included (<i>n</i> = 5 each): (i) persons with a history of LBP or primary caregiver, (ii) researchers with expertise in LBP, and (iii) primary care providers specialized in treating LBP. The interpretation, analysis, and summary of results used Knafl et al.'s qualitative content analysis method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Persons with a history of LBP (<i>n</i> = 5), had a median age of 60 years (Interquartile Range (IQR): 26-71.5), and varying durations of LBP, the median duration of LBP 7 years (IQR: 4-32.5). Researchers (<i>n</i> = 5) had a median age of 33 years (IQR: 29-45). Primary care providers (<i>n</i> = 5) had a median age of 40 years (IQR: 37.5-65), and a background in chiropractic care (<i>n</i> = 3) and physiotherapy (<i>n</i> = 2). Content analysis of the interviews revealed sources of error with five pre-determined themes (clarity/comprehension, relevance, inadequate response definition, reference point, perspective modifiers) and one developed theme (organization). We modified the questionnaire for LBP populations based on the feedback.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study evaluated the content validity of a questionnaire that assesses the direct and indirect costs associated with LBP. Future studies should pilot this questionnaire with persons of varying LBP severity and compare it with cost diaries.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462324000515","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The costs of low back pain (LBP) are complex and difficult to estimate. This study aims to adapt the Cost for Patients Questionnaire (CoPaQ) for use in LBP populations.

Materials and methods: In a cross-sectional qualitative study, we conducted cognitive interviews to assess the CoPaQ's suitability for addressing costs related to LBP. Three groups of participants were included (n = 5 each): (i) persons with a history of LBP or primary caregiver, (ii) researchers with expertise in LBP, and (iii) primary care providers specialized in treating LBP. The interpretation, analysis, and summary of results used Knafl et al.'s qualitative content analysis method.

Results: Persons with a history of LBP (n = 5), had a median age of 60 years (Interquartile Range (IQR): 26-71.5), and varying durations of LBP, the median duration of LBP 7 years (IQR: 4-32.5). Researchers (n = 5) had a median age of 33 years (IQR: 29-45). Primary care providers (n = 5) had a median age of 40 years (IQR: 37.5-65), and a background in chiropractic care (n = 3) and physiotherapy (n = 2). Content analysis of the interviews revealed sources of error with five pre-determined themes (clarity/comprehension, relevance, inadequate response definition, reference point, perspective modifiers) and one developed theme (organization). We modified the questionnaire for LBP populations based on the feedback.

Conclusion: Our study evaluated the content validity of a questionnaire that assesses the direct and indirect costs associated with LBP. Future studies should pilot this questionnaire with persons of varying LBP severity and compare it with cost diaries.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
针对腰背痛患者的 COST 患者问卷 (COPAQ) 的内容验证:一项定性研究。
导言:腰背痛(LBP)的成本复杂且难以估算。本研究旨在调整患者成本问卷(CoPaQ),使其适用于腰背痛人群:在一项横断面定性研究中,我们进行了认知访谈,以评估 CoPaQ 是否适用于处理与腰椎间盘突出症相关的费用问题。研究包括三组参与者(每组 5 人):(i) 有枸杞多糖症病史者或主要护理者,(ii) 具有枸杞多糖症专业知识的研究人员,(iii) 专门治疗枸杞多糖症的初级保健提供者。对结果的解释、分析和总结采用了 Knafl 等人的定性内容分析法:有枸杞痛病史者(n = 5)的年龄中位数为 60 岁(四分位距(IQR):26-71.5),枸杞痛病程长短不一,中位数为 7 年(IQR:4-32.5)。研究人员(5 人)的中位年龄为 33 岁(IQR:29-45)。初级保健提供者(5 人)的年龄中位数为 40 岁(IQR:37.5-65),具有脊骨神经治疗(3 人)和物理治疗(2 人)背景。通过对访谈内容进行分析,我们发现了五个预先确定的主题(清晰度/理解力、相关性、不适当的回答定义、参考点、观点修饰语)和一个发展的主题(组织)的错误来源。我们根据反馈意见修改了针对枸杞多糖人群的问卷:我们的研究评估了评估与枸杞痛相关的直接和间接成本的问卷的内容有效性。未来的研究应在不同严重程度的枸杞痛患者中试用该问卷,并将其与成本日记进行比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1