A Refined Teach-back Observation Tool: Validity Evidence in a Pediatric Setting.

Q2 Medicine Health literacy research and practice Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-05 DOI:10.3928/24748307-20230919-01
Mary Ann Abrams, Kristin Garton Crichton, Edward J Oberle, Stacy Flowers, Timothy N Crawford, Michael F Perry, John D Mahan, Suzanne Reed
{"title":"A Refined Teach-back Observation Tool: Validity Evidence in a Pediatric Setting.","authors":"Mary Ann Abrams, Kristin Garton Crichton, Edward J Oberle, Stacy Flowers, Timothy N Crawford, Michael F Perry, John D Mahan, Suzanne Reed","doi":"10.3928/24748307-20230919-01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Teach Back (TB) is recommended to assess and ensure patient understanding, thereby promoting safety, quality, and equity. There are many TB trainings, typically lacking assessment tools with validity evidence. We used a pediatric resident competency-based communication curriculum to develop initial validity evidence and refinement recommendations for a Teach-back Observation Tool (T-BOT).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to develop initial validity evidence for a refined T-BOT and provide guidance for further enhancements to improve essential TB skills training among pediatric residents.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After an interactive health literacy (HL) training, residents participated in recorded standardized patient (SP) encounters. Raters developed T-BOT scoring criteria, then scored a gold standard TB video and resident SP encounters. For agreement, Fleiss' Kappa was computed for >2 raters, and Cohen's Kappa for two raters. Percent agreement and intraclass correlation (ICC) were calculated. Statistics were calculated for gold standard (GS) and TB items overall for all six raters, and for five faculty raters. Agreement was based on Kappa: no agreement (≤0), none to slight (0.01-0.20), fair (0.21-0.40), moderate (0.41-0.60), substantial (0.61-0.80), almost perfect (0.81-1.00).</p><p><strong>Key results: </strong>For six raters, Kappa for the GS was 0.554 (moderate agreement) with 71.4% agreement; I<i>CC</i> = .597; for SP encounters, it was 0.637 (substantial) with 65.4% agreement; I<i>CC</i> = .647. Individual item agreement for SP encounters average was 0.605 (moderate), ranging from 0.142 (slight) to 1 (perfect). For five faculty raters, Kappa for the GS was 0.779 (substantial) with 85.7% agreement; I<i>CC</i> = .824; for resident SP encounters, it was 0.751 (substantial), with 76.9% agreement; I<i>CC</i> = .759. Individual item agreement on SP encounters average was 0.718 (substantial), ranging from 0.156 (slight) to 1 (perfect).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We provide initial validity evidence for a modified T-BOT and recommendations for improvement. With further refinements to increase validity evidence, accompanied by shared understanding of TB and rating criteria, the T-BOT may be useful in strengthening approaches to teaching and improving essential TB skills among health care team members, thereby increasing organizational HL and improving outcomes. [<b><i>HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice</i>. 2023;7(4):e187-e196.</b>].</p>","PeriodicalId":36651,"journal":{"name":"Health literacy research and practice","volume":"7 4","pages":"e187-e196"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/41/8c/hlrp1023abramsor-prt.PMC10561624.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health literacy research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3928/24748307-20230919-01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Teach Back (TB) is recommended to assess and ensure patient understanding, thereby promoting safety, quality, and equity. There are many TB trainings, typically lacking assessment tools with validity evidence. We used a pediatric resident competency-based communication curriculum to develop initial validity evidence and refinement recommendations for a Teach-back Observation Tool (T-BOT).

Objective: This study aimed to develop initial validity evidence for a refined T-BOT and provide guidance for further enhancements to improve essential TB skills training among pediatric residents.

Methods: After an interactive health literacy (HL) training, residents participated in recorded standardized patient (SP) encounters. Raters developed T-BOT scoring criteria, then scored a gold standard TB video and resident SP encounters. For agreement, Fleiss' Kappa was computed for >2 raters, and Cohen's Kappa for two raters. Percent agreement and intraclass correlation (ICC) were calculated. Statistics were calculated for gold standard (GS) and TB items overall for all six raters, and for five faculty raters. Agreement was based on Kappa: no agreement (≤0), none to slight (0.01-0.20), fair (0.21-0.40), moderate (0.41-0.60), substantial (0.61-0.80), almost perfect (0.81-1.00).

Key results: For six raters, Kappa for the GS was 0.554 (moderate agreement) with 71.4% agreement; ICC = .597; for SP encounters, it was 0.637 (substantial) with 65.4% agreement; ICC = .647. Individual item agreement for SP encounters average was 0.605 (moderate), ranging from 0.142 (slight) to 1 (perfect). For five faculty raters, Kappa for the GS was 0.779 (substantial) with 85.7% agreement; ICC = .824; for resident SP encounters, it was 0.751 (substantial), with 76.9% agreement; ICC = .759. Individual item agreement on SP encounters average was 0.718 (substantial), ranging from 0.156 (slight) to 1 (perfect).

Conclusion: We provide initial validity evidence for a modified T-BOT and recommendations for improvement. With further refinements to increase validity evidence, accompanied by shared understanding of TB and rating criteria, the T-BOT may be useful in strengthening approaches to teaching and improving essential TB skills among health care team members, thereby increasing organizational HL and improving outcomes. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2023;7(4):e187-e196.].

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
一种精细的反馈观察工具:儿科环境中的有效性证据。
背景:建议采用教学法(TB)来评估和确保患者的理解,从而促进安全、质量和公平。有许多结核病培训,通常缺乏具有有效性证据的评估工具。我们使用了基于儿科住院医师能力的沟通课程来开发反馈观察工具(T-BOT)的初始有效性证据和改进建议。目的:本研究旨在为改进的T-BOT开发初步有效性证据,并为进一步加强儿科住院医师的基本结核病技能培训提供指导。方法:在互动健康素养(HL)培训后,居民参与记录的标准化患者(SP)遭遇。评分者制定了T-BOT评分标准,然后为结核病视频和居民SP遭遇战评分。为了达成一致,Fleiss的Kappa被计算为>2名评分者,Cohen的Kappa则被计算为两名评分者。计算一致性百分比和组内相关性(ICC)。对所有六名评分者和五名教员的金标准(GS)和结核病项目进行了总体统计。一致性基于Kappa:无一致性(≤0)、无至轻微(0.01-0.20)、一般(0.21-0.40)、中等(0.41-0.60)、实质性(0.61-0.80)、几乎完美(0.81-1.00);ICC=.597;对于SP遭遇,它是0.637(实质性的),65.4%的人同意;ICC=.647。SP遭遇的单项一致性平均值为0.605(中等),从0.142(轻微)到1(完全)不等。对于五名教师评分者,GS的Kappa为0.779(实质性),85.7%的人同意;ICC=.824;对于居民SP遭遇,它是0.751(实质性),76.9%的人同意;ICC=.759。SP遭遇的单项一致性平均为0.718(实质性),从0.156(轻微)到1(完美)不等。结论:我们为改进的T-BOT提供了初步的有效性证据,并提出了改进建议。随着对有效性证据的进一步完善,以及对结核病和评级标准的共同理解,T-BOT可能有助于加强教学方法,提高医疗团队成员的基本结核病技能,从而提高组织HL并改善结果。[HLRP:健康素养研究与实践.2023;7(4):e187-e196.]。
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
Health literacy research and practice
Health literacy research and practice Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊最新文献
Exploring the Relation Between Health Literacy, Infodemic, and Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination in Iran: A Cross-Sectional Study. Health Literacy and Adherence to Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes: A Cross-Sectional Study in Portugal. Association of Social Determinants of Health With Hospital Readmission and Mortality: A Prospective Cohort Study. Health Literacy Directed Weight Loss Intervention in Primary Care Clinics. Get Health'e': A Pilot Test of a Digital Health Literacy Intervention for Young Adults.
×
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