Badran Hani, Pluye Pierre, Grad Roland
Information Technology Primary Care Research Group, Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Herzl Family Practice Centre, Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
JMIR Med Educ. 2017 Mar 14;3(1):e4. doi: 10.2196/mededu.6415.
The Information Assessment Method (IAM) allows clinicians to report the cognitive impact, clinical relevance, intention to use, and expected patient health benefits associated with clinical information received by email. More than 15,000 Canadian physicians and pharmacists use the IAM in continuing education programs. In addition, information providers can use IAM ratings and feedback comments from clinicians to improve their products.
Our general objective was to validate the IAM questionnaire for the delivery of educational material (ecological and logical content validity). Our specific objectives were to measure the relevance and evaluate the representativeness of IAM items for assessing information received by email.
A 3-part mixed methods study was conducted (convergent design). In part 1 (quantitative longitudinal study), the relevance of IAM items was measured. Participants were 5596 physician members of the Canadian Medical Association who used the IAM. A total of 234,196 ratings were collected in 2012. The relevance of IAM items with respect to their main construct was calculated using descriptive statistics (relevance ratio R). In part 2 (qualitative descriptive study), the representativeness of IAM items was evaluated. A total of 15 family physicians completed semistructured face-to-face interviews. For each construct, we evaluated the representativeness of IAM items using a deductive-inductive thematic qualitative data analysis. In part 3 (mixing quantitative and qualitative parts), results from quantitative and qualitative analyses were reviewed, juxtaposed in a table, discussed with experts, and integrated. Thus, our final results are derived from the views of users (ecological content validation) and experts (logical content validation).
Of the 23 IAM items, 21 were validated for content, while 2 were removed. In part 1 (quantitative results), 21 items were deemed relevant, while 2 items were deemed not relevant (R=4.86% [N=234,196] and R=3.04% [n=45,394], respectively). In part 2 (qualitative results), 22 items were deemed representative, while 1 item was not representative. In part 3 (mixing quantitative and qualitative results), the content validity of 21 items was confirmed, and the 2 nonrelevant items were excluded. A fully validated version was generated (IAM-v2014).
This study produced a content validated IAM questionnaire that is used by clinicians and information providers to assess the clinical information delivered in continuing education programs.
信息评估方法（IAM）使临床医生能够报告与通过电子邮件接收的临床信息相关的认知影响、临床相关性、使用意图以及预期的患者健康益处。超过15000名加拿大医生和药剂师在继续教育项目中使用IAM。此外，信息提供者可以利用临床医生的IAM评分和反馈意见来改进他们的产品。
我们的总体目标是验证用于提供教育材料的IAM问卷（生态和逻辑内容效度）。我们的具体目标是衡量IAM项目对于评估通过电子邮件接收的信息的相关性，并评估其代表性。
进行了一项三部分的混合方法研究（收敛性设计）。在第1部分（定量纵向研究）中，衡量了IAM项目的相关性。参与者为5596名使用IAM的加拿大医学协会医生会员。2012年共收集了234196个评分。使用描述性统计（相关性比率R）计算IAM项目与其主要结构的相关性。在第2部分（定性描述性研究）中，评估了IAM项目的代表性。共有15名家庭医生完成了半结构化面对面访谈。对于每个结构，我们使用演绎-归纳主题定性数据分析评估IAM项目的代表性。在第3部分（定量和定性部分混合）中，对定量和定性分析的结果进行了审查，并列在一个表格中，与专家进行了讨论并整合。因此，我们的最终结果来自用户的观点（生态内容验证）和专家的观点（逻辑内容验证）。
在23个IAM项目中，21个项目在内容上得到验证，2个项目被删除。在第1部分（定量结果）中，21个项目被认为相关，2个项目被认为不相关（相关性比率分别为R = 4.86% [N = 234196]和R = 3.04% [n = 45394]）。在第2部分（定性结果）中，22个项目被认为具有代表性，1个项目不具有代表性。在第3部分（定量和定性结果混合）中，21个项目的内容效度得到确认，2个不相关项目被排除。生成了一个经过全面验证的版本（IAM-v2014）。
本研究产生了一份经过内容验证的IAM问卷，临床医生和信息提供者可使用该问卷来评估继续教育项目中提供的临床信息。
