首页> 外文期刊>British journal of health psychology >Comparison of four methods for assessing the importance of attitudinal beliefs: An international Delphi study in intensive care settings
【24h】

Comparison of four methods for assessing the importance of attitudinal beliefs: An international Delphi study in intensive care settings

机译:四种评估态度观念重要性的方法的比较:国际重症监护室Delphi研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objectives. Behaviour change interventions often target 'important' beliefs. The literature proposes four methods for assessing importance of attitudinal beliefs: elicitation frequency, importance ratings, and strength of prediction (bivariate and multivariate). We tested congruence between these methods in a Delphi study about selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD). SDD improves infection rates among critically ill patients, yet uptake in intensive care units is low internationally. Methods. A Delphi study involved three iterations ('rounds'). Participants were 105 intensive care clinicians in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia/New Zealand. In Round 1, semi-structured interviews were conducted to elicit beliefs about delivering SDD. In Rounds 2 and 3, participants completed questionnaires, rating agreement and importance for each belief-statement (9-point Likert scales). Belief importance was assessed using elicitation frequency, mean importance ratings, and prediction of global attitude (Pearson's correlations; beta-weights). Correlations between indices were computed. Results. Participants generated 14 attitudinal beliefs. Indices had adequate variation (frequencies: 4-94, mean importance ratings: 4.93-8.00, Pearson's correlations:±0.09 to ±0.54, beta-weights: ±0.01 to ±0.30). SDD increases antibiotic resistance was the most important belief according to three methods and was ranked second by beta-weights (behind Overall, SDD benefits patients to whom it is delivered). Spearman's correlations were significant for importance ratings with frequencies and correlations. However, other indices were unrelated. The top four beliefs differed according to the measure used. Conclusions. Results provided evidence of congruence across three methods for assessing belief importance. Beta-weights were unrelated to other indices, suggesting that they may not be appropriate as the sole method.
机译:目标。行为改变干预措施通常针对“重要”信念。文献提出了四种评估态度信念重要性的方法:启发频率,重要性等级和预测强度(双变量和多变量)。我们在Delphi研究中对选择性消化道(SDD)的污染进行了测试,检验了这些方法之间的一致性。 SDD可提高危重患者的感染率,但国际上重症监护病房的吸收率很低。方法。 Delphi研究涉及三个迭代(“回合”)。参加者为英国,加拿大和澳大利亚/新西兰的105名重症监护临床医生。在第1轮中,进行了半结构化访谈,以激发人们对提供SDD的信念。在第2轮和第3轮中,参与者填写了问卷,评分协议和每种信念陈述的重要性(9点李克特量表)。使用启发频率,平均重要性等级和全球态度预测(皮尔森相关性;β权重)评估信仰重要性。计算指标之间的相关性。结果。参与者产生了14种态度信念。指标有足够的差异(频率:4-94,平均重要性等级:4.93-8.00,皮尔逊相关系数:±0.09至±0.54,β权重:±0.01至±0.30)。根据三种方法,SDD增强抗生素耐药性是最重要的信念,并且按β值加权排名第二(总的来说,SDD有益于接受其治疗的患者)。 Spearman的相关性对于具有频率和相关性的重要性等级具有重要意义。但是,其他指标无关。根据所使用的度量,前四个信念有所不同。结论结果提供了三种评估信念重要性的方法的一致性证明。 Beta权重与其他指数无关,表明它们可能不适合作为唯一方法。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号