Gallo Agatha M, Wilkie Diana J, Wang Edward, Labotka Richard J, Molokie Robert E, Stahl Christiane, Hershberger Patricia E, Zhao Zhongsheng, Suarez Marie L, Johnson Bonnye, Pullum Cherese, Angulo Rigoberto, Thompson Alexis
University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Nursing, Department of Women, Children and Family Health Science, Chicago, IL, USA Basic and Translational Research Program, Comprehensive Sickle Cell Center, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Nursing, Department of Biobehavioral Health Science, Chicago, IL, USA Basic and Translational Research Program, Comprehensive Sickle Cell Center, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Clin Nurs Res. 2014 Aug;23(4):421-41. doi: 10.1177/1054773813479377. Epub 2013 Apr 8.
The study purpose was to evaluate a computer-based questionnaire (SCKnowIQ) and CHOICES educational intervention using cognitive interviewing with childbearing-aged people with sickle cell disease (SCD) or trait (SCT). Ten control group participants completed the SCKnowIQ twice. Ten intervention group participants completed the SCKnowIQ before and after the CHOICES intervention. Most participants found the questionnaire items appropriate and responded to items as the investigators intended. Participants' responses indicated that the information on SCD and SCT and reproductive options was understandable, balanced, important, and new to some. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were adequate (.47 to .87) for 4 of the 6 scales, with significant within-group changes in knowledge scores for the intervention group but not for the control group. Findings show evidence for potential efficacy of the intervention, but proof of efficacy requires a larger randomized study.
该研究的目的是使用认知访谈法,对镰状细胞病(SCD)或镰状细胞性状(SCT)的育龄人群进行评估,以评价基于计算机的调查问卷(SCKnowIQ)和CHOICES教育干预措施。10名对照组参与者完成了两次SCKnowIQ问卷。10名干预组参与者在CHOICES干预前后完成了SCKnowIQ问卷。大多数参与者认为问卷项目合适,并按照研究者的意图对项目进行了回答。参与者的回答表明,关于SCD和SCT以及生殖选择的信息是可以理解的、平衡的、重要的,并且对一些人来说是新的。6个量表中的4个量表的内部一致性和重测信度足够(0.47至0.87),干预组的知识得分在组内有显著变化,而对照组没有。研究结果显示了该干预措施潜在疗效的证据,但疗效的证明需要更大规模的随机研究。