Measuring professionals' attitudes toward persistent somatic symptoms: Development, validation, and reliability of the professionals' Attitude to Persistent Somatic Symptoms Questionnaire (PAPSS)

Denise J.C. Hanssen , Charlotte A. Spiertz , Lineke M. Tak , Judith G.M. Rosmalen
{"title":"Measuring professionals' attitudes toward persistent somatic symptoms: Development, validation, and reliability of the professionals' Attitude to Persistent Somatic Symptoms Questionnaire (PAPSS)","authors":"Denise J.C. Hanssen ,&nbsp;Charlotte A. Spiertz ,&nbsp;Lineke M. Tak ,&nbsp;Judith G.M. Rosmalen","doi":"10.1016/j.pecinn.2024.100359","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The healthcare professional's attitude toward persistent somatic symptoms (PSS) seems to play an important role in access to and quality of care for patients with PSS. To encourage research on PSS attitude, we developed and validated the Professionals' Attitude to Persistent Somatic Symptoms Questionnaire (PAPSS).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A list of items was developed through theory and a focus group with PSS experts, with response categories on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. These items were then validated through a sample (<em>N</em> = 411) consisting of medical specialists, general practitioners, and psychologists. Subscales of the PAPSS were constructed using repeated factor analyses and reliability analyses.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Exploratory factor analyses resulted in a 15-item questionnaire with four subscales: “Perceived burden” and “Affinity” showed good reliability rates; “Perceived professional competence” and “Openness to patient-centered care” had questionable reliability rates. In general, psychologists had the most pronounced scores on subscales compared to medical specialists and general practitioners.</div></div><div><h3>Innovation</h3><div>The PAPSS is the first questionnaire for exploring the role of the professional's attitude toward PSS; it offers opportunities for further research on the influence of attitude on treatment of PSS.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The PAPPS is a relatively short questionnaire that can be used in both quantitative research and clinical care. However, it requires further research on psychometric qualities, including the validation of the translated versions of this questionnaire.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74407,"journal":{"name":"PEC innovation","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 100359"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PEC innovation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772628224001079","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

The healthcare professional's attitude toward persistent somatic symptoms (PSS) seems to play an important role in access to and quality of care for patients with PSS. To encourage research on PSS attitude, we developed and validated the Professionals' Attitude to Persistent Somatic Symptoms Questionnaire (PAPSS).

Methods

A list of items was developed through theory and a focus group with PSS experts, with response categories on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. These items were then validated through a sample (N = 411) consisting of medical specialists, general practitioners, and psychologists. Subscales of the PAPSS were constructed using repeated factor analyses and reliability analyses.

Results

Exploratory factor analyses resulted in a 15-item questionnaire with four subscales: “Perceived burden” and “Affinity” showed good reliability rates; “Perceived professional competence” and “Openness to patient-centered care” had questionable reliability rates. In general, psychologists had the most pronounced scores on subscales compared to medical specialists and general practitioners.

Innovation

The PAPSS is the first questionnaire for exploring the role of the professional's attitude toward PSS; it offers opportunities for further research on the influence of attitude on treatment of PSS.

Conclusions

The PAPPS is a relatively short questionnaire that can be used in both quantitative research and clinical care. However, it requires further research on psychometric qualities, including the validation of the translated versions of this questionnaire.
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
测量专业人员对持续性躯体症状的态度:专业人员对持续性躯体症状的态度问卷 (PAPSS) 的开发、验证和可靠性
目标医疗保健专业人员对持续性躯体症状(PSS)的态度似乎对 PSS 患者的就医和医疗质量起着重要作用。为了鼓励对 PSS 态度的研究,我们开发并验证了 "专业人员对顽固性躯体症状的态度问卷"(PAPSS)。然后,由医学专家、全科医生和心理学家组成的样本(N = 411)对这些项目进行了验证。通过重复因子分析和可靠性分析,构建了 PAPSS 的子量表:"感知负担 "和 "亲和力 "显示出良好的可靠性;"感知专业能力 "和 "对以患者为中心的护理的开放性 "的可靠性值得怀疑。总体而言,与医学专家和全科医生相比,心理学家在各分量表上的得分最为明显。创新PAPSS是第一份探索专业人员对PSS态度作用的问卷;它为进一步研究态度对PSS治疗的影响提供了机会。结论PAPPS是一份相对简短的问卷,可用于定量研究和临床护理。然而,它还需要进一步的心理测量学研究,包括对该问卷的翻译版本进行验证。
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
PEC innovation
PEC innovation Medicine and Dentistry (General)
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
147 days
期刊最新文献
Measuring professionals' attitudes toward persistent somatic symptoms: Development, validation, and reliability of the professionals' Attitude to Persistent Somatic Symptoms Questionnaire (PAPSS) Tech + touch: A pilot study to facilitate access to health information technology for Spanish-speaking parents Single-encounter elicitation framework for diagnostic excellence patient-reported measures: SEE-Dx-PRM The effectiveness of integrating making every contact count into an undergraduate medical curriculum How often are patients recording their healthcare consultations in Australia and why? An online survey
×
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