Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
GZRR - Gerinnungszentrum Rhein-Ruhr, Duisburg, Germany.
Hamostaseologie. 2020 Dec;40(5):621-630. doi: 10.1055/a-1249-4645. Epub 2020 Oct 21.
Since the U.S. adherence instruments VERITAS-PRO and VERITAS-PRN were developed in another healthcare system, we assumed that they are not appropriate for the German solidarity healthcare system. This study aims to evaluate the relevance of these instruments for the German healthcare system both by people with hemophilia (PWH) and by healthcare professionals (HCP).
A total of 50 PWH (23 adult hemophilia patients and 27 parents of children with hemophilia) and 25 HCP rated the relevance of the single items of the VERITAS-PRO and VERITAS-PRN on a 5-point Likert scale. In addition, both groups were asked to make suggestions for additional adherence questions. To investigate the relevance of these instruments, the accordance between the raters' evaluations was determined calculating the content validity index (CVI) and the content validity ratio (CVR) based on the critical values of the CVR (CVR) to exclude chance and subjectivity.
CVI (CVR) calculations revealed three (5) "very important" items for PWH and six (11) items for HCP. Only two (3) "very important" items were evaluated by both groups. Four domains were considered not important by both groups. Six PWH made 14 suggestions and 14 HCP made 24 suggestions for additional adherence questions.
VERITAS-PRO and VERITAS-PRN have only very limited benefits for the German healthcare system. Since nonadherence has a great impact on the morbidity of PWH and on the costs for the healthcare system, there is a need for adherence instruments that are adapted to the specific needs of PWH in the German healthcare system.
由于美国的 VERITAS-PRO 和 VERITAS-PRN 依从性量表是在另一种医疗体系下开发的,我们假设它们并不适用于德国的团结医疗体系。本研究旨在评估这些工具对于德国医疗体系的相关性,评估人群包括血友病患者(PWH)和医疗保健专业人员(HCP)。
共有 50 名 PWH(23 名成年血友病患者和 27 名儿童血友病患者的父母)和 25 名 HCP 使用 5 点 Likert 量表对 VERITAS-PRO 和 VERITAS-PRN 的单个项目的相关性进行评分。此外,两组人员都被要求对额外的依从性问题提出建议。为了调查这些工具的相关性,通过计算内容效度指数(CVI)和内容效度比(CVR),根据 CVR 的临界值(CVR)排除偶然和主观性,确定评估者评估的一致性。
CVI(CVR)计算结果显示,对于 PWH 有 3 项(5 分)“非常重要”的项目,对于 HCP 有 6 项(11 分)。两组人员仅评估了 2 项(3 分)“非常重要”的项目。两组人员都认为有 4 个领域不重要。6 名 PWH 提出了 14 项建议,14 名 HCP 提出了 24 项建议。
VERITAS-PRO 和 VERITAS-PRN 对德国医疗体系的获益非常有限。由于不依从会对 PWH 的发病率和医疗体系的成本产生重大影响,因此需要一种适用于德国医疗体系中 PWH 特定需求的依从性工具。