探索传统药物、天然保健品和常规药物的使用:新西兰“所有药物”问卷的编制和测试。

IF 1.9 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Drugs - Real World Outcomes Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-07 DOI:10.1007/s40801-023-00389-9
E Lyn Lee, Jeff Harrison, Joanne Barnes
{"title":"探索传统药物、天然保健品和常规药物的使用:新西兰“所有药物”问卷的编制和测试。","authors":"E Lyn Lee, Jeff Harrison, Joanne Barnes","doi":"10.1007/s40801-023-00389-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Traditional, complementary and alternative medicine (TCAM) are popular healthcare choices among consumers globally. The latest national data on the use of TCAM practitioners in New Zealand (NZ) were collected over a decade ago. Robust data on the use of natural health products (NHPs) and TCAM practices alongside conventional medicines are not yet available in NZ.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to develop and test a bespoke questionnaire (All-MedsNZ) that included comprehensive data collection elements exploring NHPs' and conventional medicines' use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a questionnaire design study involving expert panel feedback, and engagement with TCAM users, in the development process. This work comprised questionnaire development (stage 1) followed by a questionnaire-testing study (stage 2). The questionnaire was developed on the basis of literature review findings and the research team's expertise. The questionnaire content was then validated by an expert panel comprising practitioners in TCAM and conventional medicine. Then, a two-phase study was utilised to test the questionnaire. Phase 1 involved participants (NHP users) completing the web-based questionnaire and providing feedback by answering probing questions added throughout the questionnaire to evaluate users' comprehension of the questions and to identify issues with the questionnaire. In phase 2, selected participants were interviewed online to gain in-depth insights into issues identified in phase one. Based on these findings, the questionnaire was revised.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The expert panel (n = 9) confirmed the questionnaire had high face and content validity; most original questions were retained. In the questionnaire-testing study, 95 and 27 participants completed the phase 1 and 2 studies, respectively. Most questions achieved a high response rate of ≥ 90%, and participants had no major issues understanding and answering the questionnaire. Problematic questions were those relating to providing product barcodes and photographs, and information on product costs. Most of the NHPs data entered by participants included the brand/generic name, manufacturer/company name, main ingredient(s) and dose form. Generally, these NHP-related data were of acceptable quality. However, information on the main ingredient(s) of products entered by participants was less satisfactory: approximately one-third of the 143 NHPs recorded in the study had the main ingredient(s) missing or incorrectly stated. Interviews with participants reiterated the issues identified in the phase 1 study. The low response rates for some of the questions were partly due to participants' unpreparedness (i.e. not having NHPs/medicines on hand) to complete the questionnaire. In addition, a lack of clarity for the term 'natural health practitioner' led to confusion among some participants.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall, no major design-, method- or questionnaire-related issues were identified in this development and testing work. The questionnaire demonstrated adequate face and content validity and acceptability among participants. The data collected were reasonably complete and of sufficient quality for analysis. Future studies should pilot the revised All-MedsNZ questionnaire with a larger, nationally representative sample to ascertain its feasibility and utility.</p>","PeriodicalId":11282,"journal":{"name":"Drugs - Real World Outcomes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10928020/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring the Use of Traditional Medicines, Natural Health Products and Conventional Medicines: Development and Testing of the New Zealand 'All-Medicines' Questionnaire.\",\"authors\":\"E Lyn Lee, Jeff Harrison, Joanne Barnes\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40801-023-00389-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Traditional, complementary and alternative medicine (TCAM) are popular healthcare choices among consumers globally. The latest national data on the use of TCAM practitioners in New Zealand (NZ) were collected over a decade ago. Robust data on the use of natural health products (NHPs) and TCAM practices alongside conventional medicines are not yet available in NZ.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to develop and test a bespoke questionnaire (All-MedsNZ) that included comprehensive data collection elements exploring NHPs' and conventional medicines' use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a questionnaire design study involving expert panel feedback, and engagement with TCAM users, in the development process. This work comprised questionnaire development (stage 1) followed by a questionnaire-testing study (stage 2). The questionnaire was developed on the basis of literature review findings and the research team's expertise. The questionnaire content was then validated by an expert panel comprising practitioners in TCAM and conventional medicine. Then, a two-phase study was utilised to test the questionnaire. Phase 1 involved participants (NHP users) completing the web-based questionnaire and providing feedback by answering probing questions added throughout the questionnaire to evaluate users' comprehension of the questions and to identify issues with the questionnaire. In phase 2, selected participants were interviewed online to gain in-depth insights into issues identified in phase one. Based on these findings, the questionnaire was revised.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The expert panel (n = 9) confirmed the questionnaire had high face and content validity; most original questions were retained. In the questionnaire-testing study, 95 and 27 participants completed the phase 1 and 2 studies, respectively. Most questions achieved a high response rate of ≥ 90%, and participants had no major issues understanding and answering the questionnaire. Problematic questions were those relating to providing product barcodes and photographs, and information on product costs. Most of the NHPs data entered by participants included the brand/generic name, manufacturer/company name, main ingredient(s) and dose form. Generally, these NHP-related data were of acceptable quality. However, information on the main ingredient(s) of products entered by participants was less satisfactory: approximately one-third of the 143 NHPs recorded in the study had the main ingredient(s) missing or incorrectly stated. Interviews with participants reiterated the issues identified in the phase 1 study. The low response rates for some of the questions were partly due to participants' unpreparedness (i.e. not having NHPs/medicines on hand) to complete the questionnaire. In addition, a lack of clarity for the term 'natural health practitioner' led to confusion among some participants.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall, no major design-, method- or questionnaire-related issues were identified in this development and testing work. The questionnaire demonstrated adequate face and content validity and acceptability among participants. The data collected were reasonably complete and of sufficient quality for analysis. Future studies should pilot the revised All-MedsNZ questionnaire with a larger, nationally representative sample to ascertain its feasibility and utility.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11282,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Drugs - Real World Outcomes\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10928020/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Drugs - Real World Outcomes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40801-023-00389-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drugs - Real World Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40801-023-00389-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言:传统、补充和替代医学(TCAM)是全球消费者的热门医疗保健选择。关于新西兰TCAM从业人员使用情况的最新国家数据是十多年前收集的。新西兰还没有关于天然健康产品(NHP)和TCAM与传统药物一起使用的可靠数据。目的:本研究旨在开发和测试一份定制问卷(All MedsNZ),其中包括探索NHP和传统药物使用的全面数据收集要素。方法:这是一项问卷设计研究,涉及专家小组的反馈,以及TCAM用户在开发过程中的参与。这项工作包括问卷开发(第一阶段)和问卷测试研究(第二阶段)。该问卷是在文献综述结果和研究团队专业知识的基础上编制的。然后,由TCAM和传统医学从业者组成的专家小组对问卷内容进行了验证。然后,使用两阶段研究来测试问卷。第一阶段涉及参与者(NHP用户)完成基于网络的问卷,并通过回答问卷中添加的探究性问题提供反馈,以评估用户对问题的理解并确定问卷中的问题。在第二阶段,对选定的参与者进行了在线访谈,以深入了解第一阶段确定的问题。根据这些调查结果,对调查表进行了修订。结果:专家组(n=9)证实该问卷具有较高的面子和内容有效性;大多数原始问题都保留了下来。在问卷测试研究中,95名和27名参与者分别完成了第一阶段和第二阶段的研究。大多数问题获得了≥90%的高回复率,参与者对问卷的理解和回答没有重大问题。有问题的问题是与提供产品条形码和照片以及产品成本信息有关的问题。参与者输入的大多数NHP数据包括品牌/通用名称、制造商/公司名称、主要成分和剂型。通常,这些与NHP相关的数据具有可接受的质量。然而,参与者输入的关于产品主要成分的信息并不令人满意:研究中记录的143个NHP中,约有三分之一的主要成分缺失或陈述错误。对参与者的访谈重申了第一阶段研究中发现的问题。一些问题的回答率较低,部分原因是参与者没有做好完成问卷的准备(即手头没有NHP/药物)。此外,“自然健康从业者”一词缺乏明确性,导致一些参与者感到困惑。结论:总体而言,在这项开发和测试工作中没有发现与设计、方法或问卷相关的重大问题。调查问卷显示了足够的面子和内容的有效性以及参与者的可接受性。所收集的数据相当完整,质量足以进行分析。未来的研究应该用更大的、具有全国代表性的样本来试行修订后的All MedsNZ问卷,以确定其可行性和实用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Exploring the Use of Traditional Medicines, Natural Health Products and Conventional Medicines: Development and Testing of the New Zealand 'All-Medicines' Questionnaire.

Introduction: Traditional, complementary and alternative medicine (TCAM) are popular healthcare choices among consumers globally. The latest national data on the use of TCAM practitioners in New Zealand (NZ) were collected over a decade ago. Robust data on the use of natural health products (NHPs) and TCAM practices alongside conventional medicines are not yet available in NZ.

Objectives: This study aimed to develop and test a bespoke questionnaire (All-MedsNZ) that included comprehensive data collection elements exploring NHPs' and conventional medicines' use.

Methods: This was a questionnaire design study involving expert panel feedback, and engagement with TCAM users, in the development process. This work comprised questionnaire development (stage 1) followed by a questionnaire-testing study (stage 2). The questionnaire was developed on the basis of literature review findings and the research team's expertise. The questionnaire content was then validated by an expert panel comprising practitioners in TCAM and conventional medicine. Then, a two-phase study was utilised to test the questionnaire. Phase 1 involved participants (NHP users) completing the web-based questionnaire and providing feedback by answering probing questions added throughout the questionnaire to evaluate users' comprehension of the questions and to identify issues with the questionnaire. In phase 2, selected participants were interviewed online to gain in-depth insights into issues identified in phase one. Based on these findings, the questionnaire was revised.

Results: The expert panel (n = 9) confirmed the questionnaire had high face and content validity; most original questions were retained. In the questionnaire-testing study, 95 and 27 participants completed the phase 1 and 2 studies, respectively. Most questions achieved a high response rate of ≥ 90%, and participants had no major issues understanding and answering the questionnaire. Problematic questions were those relating to providing product barcodes and photographs, and information on product costs. Most of the NHPs data entered by participants included the brand/generic name, manufacturer/company name, main ingredient(s) and dose form. Generally, these NHP-related data were of acceptable quality. However, information on the main ingredient(s) of products entered by participants was less satisfactory: approximately one-third of the 143 NHPs recorded in the study had the main ingredient(s) missing or incorrectly stated. Interviews with participants reiterated the issues identified in the phase 1 study. The low response rates for some of the questions were partly due to participants' unpreparedness (i.e. not having NHPs/medicines on hand) to complete the questionnaire. In addition, a lack of clarity for the term 'natural health practitioner' led to confusion among some participants.

Conclusion: Overall, no major design-, method- or questionnaire-related issues were identified in this development and testing work. The questionnaire demonstrated adequate face and content validity and acceptability among participants. The data collected were reasonably complete and of sufficient quality for analysis. Future studies should pilot the revised All-MedsNZ questionnaire with a larger, nationally representative sample to ascertain its feasibility and utility.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Drugs - Real World Outcomes
Drugs - Real World Outcomes PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
49
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Drugs - Real World Outcomes targets original research and definitive reviews regarding the use of real-world data to evaluate health outcomes and inform healthcare decision-making on drugs, devices and other interventions in clinical practice. The journal includes, but is not limited to, the following research areas: Using registries/databases/health records and other non-selected observational datasets to investigate: drug use and treatment outcomes prescription patterns drug safety signals adherence to treatment guidelines benefit : risk profiles comparative effectiveness economic analyses including cost-of-illness Data-driven research methodologies, including the capture, curation, search, sharing, analysis and interpretation of ‘big data’ Techniques and approaches to optimise real-world modelling.
期刊最新文献
A Pilot Study on the Collection of Adverse Event Data from the Patient Using an Electronic Platform in a Cancer Clinical Trial Unit. Comparison of the Safety of Aspirin Monotherapy and Aspirin and P2Y12 Inhibitor Combination Therapy in Patients Post Coil Embolization During Admission: A Cross-Sectional Study Using a Nationwide Inpatient Database. US Clinical Practice Experience with Eculizumab in Myasthenia Gravis: Acute Clinical Events and Healthcare Resource Utilization. Clinical Significance of Prior Ramucirumab Use on the Effectiveness of Nivolumab as the Third-Line Regimen in Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Study. Early Clinical Outcomes of Durvalumab Plus Tremelimumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Real-World Comparison with First-Line or Later-Line Treatment.
×
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