Search

The concept of negative partisanship has lately become a highly salient topic, yet its current measurements are far from optimal as they do not account for negative partisanship's nature as a social identity, nor are they applicable to multiparty systems. In this paper, we validate the negative partisanship (NPS) scale. By relying on expert interviews, cognitive pre-tests and a large-N survey in two countries, Germany (N = 1,911) and Italy (N = 1,440), we provide a construct validation using a nomological network based on previous studies and social identity literature. Our results show the applicability of the new instrument, the full five-item version as well as shorter conceptualizations, for the measurement of negative partisanship in multiparty systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Depression is a common mental health disorder and the second leading cause of disability worldwide. In people with depression, low depression literacy, which could be characterized by a poor recognition of depressive symptoms and less knowledge about the availability of treatment options, can hinder adequate therapy for depression. Nevertheless, questionnaires measuring depression literacy in Germany are rare. Consequently, for the present study, the German Depression Literacy Scale (D-Lit) has been revised and evaluated. Methods: First, a team of clinical psychologists revised the D-Lit German scale. Next, cognitive interviews were conducted with patients with depression to improve the comprehensibility of the scale items. Our revision of the D-Lit-R German scale was then subjected to an anonymous online study. Finally, the data went through an exploratory factor analysis, and sociodemographic subgroup analyses were performed. Results: N = 524 individuals (age 18–80) completed the D-Lit-R German scale and a questionnaire on their sociodemographic data. Cronbach´s alpha was estimated as α =.72, and McDonald's Omega (categorical) was estimated as ω =.77. The mean Item difficulty was M =.75 (SD =.15). An EFA was performed for a unidimensional model, a 5-factor-model and at last a 3-factor-model. The 5-factorial model showed a good model fit (χ2emp,WLSMV(131) = 92.424, p >.05; CFI = 1, RMSEA = 0, SRMR =.07) but was rejected since the content of the potential 5 factors could not be determined. The 3-factor model showed an arguable model fit. The Chi2 test was significant (χ2emp,WLSMV(168) = 199.912, p <.05), but the CFI and the RMSEA met an acceptable model fit (CFI =.990, RMSEA of.019, 90% CI[.003,.029]). Substantively, the three factors were defined as (1) Distractors and other symptoms, (2) Depressive symptoms, and (3) Pharmacological and psychotherapeutic depression treatment. Furthermore, there were significant differences in sum scores regarding the subgroup's gender, treatment for mental health problems, depression treatment, experience with depression, and different career fields. Conclusions: The D-Lit-R German scale is a time-efficient scale to assess some aspects of the depression literacy construct that can be easily applied. Since there was no perfect model fit, it is recommended to continue to revise the scale. Further evaluation studies could ask for knowledge of the etiological factors of depression. Future studies could then use this instrument to convey depression literacy. This instrument could assess the growth of knowledge after psychoeducational interventions in different settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recap of atopic eczema (RECAP) is a patient‐reported outcome measure assessing eczema control. This instrument has been developed and validated in the UK. There are self‐reported and proxy‐reported versions in English, Dutch and German. However, it is unclear whether the self‐reported version shows adequate content validity when completed by young people (8–16 years) in these languages. Objectives: To assess the content validity (comprehensibility, relevance and comprehensiveness) of the English, German and Dutch versions of the self‐reported RECAP in young people with atopic eczema and to identify the most appropriate age cutoff for self‐completion. Methods: We conducted 23 semistructured cognitive interviews with young people aged 8–16 years, using the 'think‐aloud' method. In Germany and the Netherlands, participants were recruited in dermatology clinics and in the UK through social media and existing mailing lists. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed in the three languages, using a problem‐focused coding manual. Transcripts were coded by two independent reviewers in each country. Themes were translated into English and compared across the three countries. Results: Significant age‐related comprehensibility issues with the last three items of the questionnaire occurred with young people aged 8–11 years, causing difficulties completing RECAP without help. However, older children had only minor problems and were able to complete the questionnaire by themselves. The self‐reported version of RECAP has sufficient content validity for self‐completion in young people aged 12 years and above. However, the German version with some translational adaptations may be appropriate for children from the age of 8 years. There may be some situations where the proxy version is needed for older children too. Conclusions: The self‐reported version of RECAP is appropriate for use from the age of 12 years. The proxy version can be used in children younger than 12 years. Other measurement properties should be further investigated. What is already known about this topic?Recap of atopic eczema (RECAP) is an instrument recommended by the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema initiative for the core outcome domain of long‐term control of atopic eczema.Content validity of RECAP for self‐completion by adults and of the proxy version has been assessed. What does this study add?In this study, content validity (comprehensibility, relevance and comprehensiveness) of the self‐reported version of RECAP among young people (aged 8–16 years) with atopic eczema across the UK, Germany and the Netherlands is assessed.Based on these findings, key recommendations on how to measure eczema control in young people with atopic eczema are formulated. What are the clinical implications of this work?The Dutch, English and German self‐completion versions of RECAP are recommended for use in adolescents from the age of 12 years.The proxy version could be used in children younger than 12 years or where children are cognitively or physically incapable of reporting their experience of eczema control.Caregivers should be encouraged to complete RECAP together with their child where possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Palliative care phases (stable, unstable, deteriorating, terminal and bereavement) are routinely used in Australia and the UK to describe the clinical situation of patients and their families and to evaluate the associated care plan. In addition, it serves as a benchmark developed by the Australian Palliative Care Outcome Collaboration (PCOC) and is used nationwide for comparisons between services. In Germany, the concept is not used consistently due to various translations. Furthermore, there is no nationwide systematic approach to routinely assess clinical outcomes in palliative care. The study aims to develop a German version of the palliative care phase definitions by adapting them culturally, and to examine the inter-rater reliability of the adjusted definitions with healthcare professionals. Methods: Mixed-methods approach: Cognitive interview study using 'think aloud' and verbal probing techniques and a consecutive multi-center cross-sectional study with two clinicians independently assigning the phase definitions. Interviewees/participants were selected through convenience and purposive sampling in specialist palliative care inpatient units, advisory and community services and in three specialist palliative care units with doctors, nursing staff and allied health professionals. Results: Fifteen interviews were conducted. Identified difficulties were: Some translated terms were 1) not self-explanatory (e.g. 'family/carer' or 'care plan') and (2) too limited to the medical dimension neglecting the holistic approach of palliative care. (3) Problems of comprehension regarding the concept in general occurred, e.g. in differentiating between the 'unstable' and 'deteriorating' phase. Inter-rater reliability was moderate (kappa = 0.44; 95% CI = 0.39–0.52). The assignment of the phase 'deteriorating' has caused the most difficulties. Conclusion: Overall, the adapted palliative care phases are suitable to use in the German specialist palliative care setting. However, the concept of the phases is not self-explanatory. To implement it nationwide for outcome measurement/benchmarking, it requires further education, on-the-job training and experience as well as the involvement of healthcare professionals in implementation process. For the use of international concepts in different healthcare systems, a deeper discussion and cultural adaptation is necessary besides the formal translation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Shared decision-making is currently not widely implemented in breast cancer care. Encounter decision aids support shared decision-making by helping patients and physicians compare treatment options. So far, little was known about adaptation needs for translated encounter decision aids, and encounter decision aids for breast cancer treatments were not available in Germany. This study aimed to adapt and evaluate the implementation of two encounter decision aids on breast cancer treatments in routine care.Methods: We conducted a multi-phase qualitative study: (1) translation of two breast cancer Option Grid™ decision aids; comparison to national clinical standards; cognitive interviews to test patients' understanding; (2) focus groups to assess acceptability; (3) testing in routine care using participant observation. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis.Results: Physicians and patients reacted positively to the idea of encounter decision aids, and reported being interested in using them; patients were most receptive. Several adaptation cycles were necessary. Uncertainty about feasibility of using encounter decision aids in clinical settings was the main physician-reported barrier. During real-world testing (N = 77 encounters), physicians used encounter decision aids in one-third of potentially relevant encounters. However, they did not use the encounter decision aids to stimulate dialogue, which is contrary to their original scope and purpose.Conclusions: The idea of using encounter decision aids was welcomed, but more by patients than by physicians. Adaptation was a complex process and required resources. Clinicians did not follow suggested strategies for using encounter decision aids. Our study indicates that production of encounter decision aids alone will not lead to successful implementation, and has to be accompanied by training of health care providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Konfliktmanagement is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale is a newly developed advancement of the Palliative care Outcome Scale. It assesses patient-reported symptoms and other concerns. Cognitive interviewing is recommended for questionnaire refinement but not adopted widely in palliative care research. Aim: To explore German- and English-speaking patients’ views on the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale with a focus on comprehensibility and acceptability, and subsequently refine the questionnaire. Methods: Bi-national (United Kingdom/Germany) cognitive interview study using ‘think aloud’ and verbal probing techniques. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis and pre-defined categories. Results from both countries were collated and discussed. The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale was then refined by consensus. Setting/participants: Purposely sampled patients from four palliative care teams in palliative care units, general hospital wards and in the community. Results: A total of 15 German and 10 UK interviews were conducted. Overall, comprehension and acceptability of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale were good. Identified difficulties comprised the following: (1) comprehension problems with specific terms (e.g. ‘mouth problems’) and length of answer options; (2) judgement difficulties, for example, due to the 3-day recall for questions; and (3) layout problems. Combining the results from both countries (e.g. regarding ‘felt good about yourself’) and discussing them from both languages’ perspectives resulted in wider consideration of the items’ meaning, enabling more detailed refinement. Conclusion: Cognitive interviewing proved valuable to increase face and content validity of the questionnaire. The concurrent approach in two languages – to our knowledge the first such approach in palliative care – benefited the refinement. Psychometric validation of the refined Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale is now underway. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Potential sources for errors or critical incidents in healthcare may arise not just within a healthcare facility, but also between healthcare facilities (e. g., in the communication between in- and outpatient care). This study aims to test the content validity of the reporting sheet and to optimize the cross-sectoral critical incident reporting system (CIRS-CS)., Method: The CIRS-CS was developed as a part of the project "solimed ePflegebericht" based on the expertise of the participating organizations as well as existing literature and existing reporting systems (e. g., the recommendations of the "German Coalition for Patient Safety"). In addition, a pre-test was conducted among the organizations participating in the "solimed ePflegebericht" to assess the content validity of the reporting sheet. Content validity was assessed using cognitive interviews (N=11) with health professionals. The interviews were conducted on the basis of predefined scenarios and probing questions., Results: The reporting sheet that was used for the pre-test consisted of 16 components such as reason for reporting/description of the problem, location of the patient at the time of reporting and suggested solution to the problem. The results of the pre-test indicated that participants found it challenging to relate to components such as In which type of healthcare service did the problem occur, What was the cause of the problem and Which factors contributed to the problem. For instance, some participants found it difficult to decide in which type of healthcare service (e. g., emergency care, routine care) the underlying problem occurred as this component could be reported from different perspectives, i. e. where the incident arose versus where the problem occurred. Thus, depending on the interpretation of this component, the participants questioned the feasibility since there was a lack of knowledge as to under which circumstances the incident arose., Conclusion: The results of the pre-test of the CIRS-CS suggest that the description of the causes as well as potential solutions via the cross-sectoral reporting sheet is unfeasible and may be better approached with an interdisciplinary investigation team panel as part of the reporting system, in which the participating representatives are able to enter a structured dialogue based on the reported problems. Furthermore, the results indicate that investigation team panels enable an interprofessional exchange and may thus promote transparency between healthcare facilities. At this point, there is little research on the content validity of reporting sheets for cross-sectoral reporting systems. Hence, our results may contribute to the development of comprehensible and feasible cross-sectoral CIRS., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Objective: Self-rated health (SRH) is a widely used indictor of the subjective health status in population-based studies. However, differences in the reporting style across ethnic groups may limit the predictive ability of SRH for objective health outcomes. As part of the preparation phase of the UPWEB (understanding the practice and developing the concept of welfare bricolage) project, this study explored ethnic differences in the understanding of self-rated health among persons of Turkish, Bosnian and German origin, living in two northern Germany cities, Bremen and Hamburg. Results: Thirty persons, 10 per ethnic group, aged 32–82 years, took part in the assessment based on cognitive interviewing. All three ethnic groups defined SRH as the absence or presence of visible or non-visible disturbances and/or deviations from the norm, the ability or limited ability to act as well as the result of specific behaviours. However, only participants from the two migrant groups referred to community cohesion and religious or traditional beliefs as aspects of their SRH, indicating a systematic difference in the understanding of this question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Cross-cultural translation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is a lengthy process, often performed professionally. Cognitive interviewing assesses patient comprehension of PROMs. The objective was to evaluate the usefulness of cognitive interviewing to assess translations and compare professional (full) with non-professional (simplified) translation processes., Methods: A full protocol used for the Bristol RA Fatigue Multi-dimensional Questionnaire and Numerical Rating Scale (BRAF-MDQ, BRAF-NRS) was compared with a simplified protocol used for the RA Impact of Disease scale (RAID). RA patients in the UK, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain and Sweden completed the PROMs during cognitive interviewing (BRAFs in the UK were omitted as these were performed during development). Transcripts were deductively analysed for understanding, information retrieval, judgement and response options. Usefulness of cognitive interviewing was assessed by the nature of problems identified, and translation processes by percentage of consistently problematic items (⩾40% patients per country with similar concerns)., Results: Sixty patients participated (72% women). For the BRAFs (full protocol) one problematic item was identified (of 23 items × 5 languages, 1/115 = 0.9%). For the RAID (simplified protocol) two problematic items were identified (of 7 items × 6 languages, 2/42 = 4.8%), of which one was revised (Dutch). Coping questions were problematic in both PROMs., Conclusion: Conceptual and cultural challenges though rare were important, as identified by formal evaluation, demonstrating that cognitive interviewing is crucial in PROM translations. Proportionately fewer problematic items were found for the full than for the simplified translation procedure, suggesting that while both are acceptable, professional PROM translation might be preferable. Coping may be a particularly challenging notion cross-culturally., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)