Development and validation of a patient satisfaction and preference questionnaire for inhalation devices.

Chris M Kozma, Terra L Slaton, Brigitta U Monz, Richard Hodder, Pat R Reese
{"title":"Development and validation of a patient satisfaction and preference questionnaire for inhalation devices.","authors":"Chris M Kozma,&nbsp;Terra L Slaton,&nbsp;Brigitta U Monz,&nbsp;Richard Hodder,&nbsp;Pat R Reese","doi":"10.2165/00151829-200504010-00005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Patient Satisfaction and Preference Questionnaire (PASAPQ) is a multi-item measure of respiratory inhalation device satisfaction and preference designed to be easily understood and administered to patients with asthma and COPD. This study assessed its validity, reliability and responsiveness and explored the between-group difference in PASAPQ scores that is meaningful.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The field test version was developed using literature, focus groups and expert opinion. Item reduction followed. The assessment of the validity, reliability and responsiveness of the PASAPQ utilized data from two clinical studies comparing devices delivering the same medication, and was performed with pre-specified criteria. A minimally important difference (MID) was estimated using both anchor- and distribution-based approaches.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two factors of the PASAPQ, 'performance' and 'convenience', were consistent across studies. Missing and out-of-range data were minimal (<1%) and respondents used a full range of response options. All items correlated most highly with their hypothesized scale and all exceeded the minimum correlation criteria of 0.40. Cronbach's alfa was high (0.87-0.94), providing support for internal reliability for the PASAPQ. Correlations of the overall satisfaction item with the performance domain ranged from 0.78 to 0.91, the convenience domain ranged from 0.54 to 0.71, and the total score ranged from 0.78 to 0.90. These moderate-to-strong correlations provide substantial support for the validity of the PASAPQ domains and total score. Discriminate validity was assessed by calculating PASAPQ scores for patients' ratings of the device that they preferred compared with the other, non-preferred device. The preferred device was rated higher on all satisfaction measures, supporting the ability of the PASAPQ to discriminate between preferred and non-preferred devices. Although a difference of 3 or 4 points may be sufficient to observe a small effect difference between groups, most of the MID estimates were in the 8-10 point range.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>Our analyses across asthma, COPD and patients with mixed respiratory disease (with features of both COPD and asthma), study designs and data sets lead us to conclude that the PASAPQ is a practical, valid, reliable and responsive instrument for measuring respiratory device satisfaction. Furthermore, a difference in satisfaction scores between treatment groups of 10 points is, conservatively, a difference that is meaningful to patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":87162,"journal":{"name":"Treatments in respiratory medicine","volume":"4 1","pages":"41-52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2165/00151829-200504010-00005","citationCount":"66","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Treatments in respiratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2165/00151829-200504010-00005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 66

Abstract

Introduction: The Patient Satisfaction and Preference Questionnaire (PASAPQ) is a multi-item measure of respiratory inhalation device satisfaction and preference designed to be easily understood and administered to patients with asthma and COPD. This study assessed its validity, reliability and responsiveness and explored the between-group difference in PASAPQ scores that is meaningful.

Methods: The field test version was developed using literature, focus groups and expert opinion. Item reduction followed. The assessment of the validity, reliability and responsiveness of the PASAPQ utilized data from two clinical studies comparing devices delivering the same medication, and was performed with pre-specified criteria. A minimally important difference (MID) was estimated using both anchor- and distribution-based approaches.

Results: Two factors of the PASAPQ, 'performance' and 'convenience', were consistent across studies. Missing and out-of-range data were minimal (<1%) and respondents used a full range of response options. All items correlated most highly with their hypothesized scale and all exceeded the minimum correlation criteria of 0.40. Cronbach's alfa was high (0.87-0.94), providing support for internal reliability for the PASAPQ. Correlations of the overall satisfaction item with the performance domain ranged from 0.78 to 0.91, the convenience domain ranged from 0.54 to 0.71, and the total score ranged from 0.78 to 0.90. These moderate-to-strong correlations provide substantial support for the validity of the PASAPQ domains and total score. Discriminate validity was assessed by calculating PASAPQ scores for patients' ratings of the device that they preferred compared with the other, non-preferred device. The preferred device was rated higher on all satisfaction measures, supporting the ability of the PASAPQ to discriminate between preferred and non-preferred devices. Although a difference of 3 or 4 points may be sufficient to observe a small effect difference between groups, most of the MID estimates were in the 8-10 point range.

Discussion and conclusion: Our analyses across asthma, COPD and patients with mixed respiratory disease (with features of both COPD and asthma), study designs and data sets lead us to conclude that the PASAPQ is a practical, valid, reliable and responsive instrument for measuring respiratory device satisfaction. Furthermore, a difference in satisfaction scores between treatment groups of 10 points is, conservatively, a difference that is meaningful to patients.

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
制定和验证患者对吸入装置的满意度和偏好问卷。
患者满意度和偏好问卷(PASAPQ)是一个多项目测量呼吸吸入装置满意度和偏好的设计,易于理解和适用于哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺病患者。本研究评估其效度、信度和反应性,探讨PASAPQ评分的组间差异有意义。方法:采用文献资料法、焦点小组法和专家意见法编制现场测试版。随后是物品减少。PASAPQ的有效性、可靠性和响应性评估使用了来自两项临床研究的数据,这些研究比较了提供相同药物的设备,并按照预先指定的标准进行。最小重要差异(MID)使用锚点和分布为基础的方法估计。结果:PASAPQ的两个因素,“性能”和“方便”,在所有研究中是一致的。缺失和超出范围的数据极少(讨论和结论:我们对哮喘、COPD和混合性呼吸系统疾病(同时具有COPD和哮喘的特征)患者的分析,研究设计和数据集使我们得出结论,PASAPQ是一种实用、有效、可靠和反应灵敏的测量呼吸装置满意度的仪器。此外,保守地说,治疗组之间满意度得分10分的差异对患者来说是有意义的。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Nosocomial pneumonia : rationalizing the approach to empirical therapy. Managing asthma in expectant mothers. New strategies for the treatment of pulmonary hypertension in sickle cell disease : the rationale for arginine therapy. Antioxidant strategies in respiratory medicine.
×
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