Department of Nursing and Health Promotion, Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Institute of Health and Nursing Science, Faculty of Medicine, Martin Luther University, Halle (Saale), Germany.
PLoS One. 2023 Oct 23;18(10):e0290027. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290027. eCollection 2023.
Health information is a prerequisite for informed choices-decisions, made by individuals about their own health based on knowledge and in congruence with own preferences. Criteria for development, content and design have been defined in a corresponding guideline. However, no instruments exist that provide reasonably operationalised measurement items. Therefore, we drafted the checklist, MAPPinfo, addressing the existing criteria with 19 items.
The current study aimed to validate MAPPinfo.
Five substudies were conducted subsequently at the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany and the Medical University of Graz, Austria: (1) to determine content validity through expert reviews of the first draft, (2) to determine feasibility using 'think aloud' in piloting with untrained users, (3) to determine inter-rater reliability and criterion validity through a pretest on 50 health information materials, (4) to determine construct validity using 50 developers' self-declarations about development methods as a reference standard, (5) to determine divergent validity in comparison with the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) (expanded) Scale. The analyses used were qualitative methods and correlation-based methods for determining both inter-rater reliability and validity.
The instrument was considered by experts to operationalise the existing guidelines convincingly. Health and nursing science students found it easy to understand and use. It also had good interrater reliability (mean of T coefficients = .79) and provided a very good estimate of the reference standard (Spearman's rho = .89), implying sound construct validity. Finally, comparison with the EQIP instrument revealed important and distinct areas of similarities and differences.
The new instrument is ready for use as a screening instrument without the need for training. According to its underpinning concept the instrument exclusively comprises items which are justified by either ethics or research evidence, implying negligence of not yet evidence based, however, potentially important criteria. Further research is needed to complete the body of evidence-based criteria, aiming at an extension of the guideline and MAPPinfo.
AsPredicted22546; date of registration: 24 July 2019.
健康信息是知情选择的前提——个人基于知识并符合自身偏好，就自身健康做出决策。发展、内容和设计标准已在相应的指南中定义。然而，目前还没有能够提供合理操作化测量项目的工具。因此，我们起草了清单 MAPPinfo，用 19 个项目来解决现有标准。
本研究旨在验证 MAPPinfo。
德国哈勒-维滕贝格马丁路德大学和奥地利格拉茨医科大学随后进行了五项子研究：（1）通过对初稿的专家评审来确定内容有效性；（2）通过对未经培训的用户进行“出声思考”来确定可行性；（3）通过对 50 份健康信息材料的预测试来确定评分者间信度和效标效度；（4）通过参考开发方法的 50 位开发者的自我声明来确定构念有效性；（5）与 Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP)（扩展）量表进行比较，以确定区别效度。分析采用定性方法和基于相关性的方法来确定评分者间信度和效度。
专家认为该工具令人信服地操作了现有指南。健康和护理科学专业的学生发现它易于理解和使用。它还具有良好的评分者间信度（T 系数平均值=.79），并且对参考标准的估计非常好（Spearman's rho=.89），这表明其具有良好的构念效度。最后，与 EQIP 工具的比较揭示了重要而明显的相似和不同之处。
新工具已准备好作为一种无需培训即可使用的筛选工具。根据其基础概念，该工具仅包含基于伦理或研究证据证明合理的项目，这意味着忽略了尚未基于证据但潜在重要的标准。需要进一步的研究来完善基于证据的标准，旨在扩展指南和 MAPPinfo。
AsPredicted22546；注册日期：2019 年 7 月 24 日。
