4.4 Article

Revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire (APS-POQ-R) for Quality Improvement of Pain Management in Hospitalized Adults Preliminary Psychometric Evaluation

期刊

JOURNAL OF PAIN
卷 11, 期 11, 页码 1172-1186

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2010.02.012

关键词

Psychometrics; quality improvement; outcomes; patient survey; adult

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quality improvement (QI) is a compilation of methods adapted from psychology stabs tics and operations research to identify factors that contribute to poor treatment outcomes and to design solutions for improvement Valid and reliable measurement is essential to QI using rigorously developed and tested instruments The purpose of this article is to describe the evolution of the American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire (APS POQ) for QI purposes and present a revised version (R) including instrument psychometrics An interdisciplinary task force of the APS used a step wise empiric approach to revise test and examine psychometric properties of the society s original POQ The APS POQ R is designed for use in adult hospital pain management QI activities and measures 6 aspects of quality including (1) pain severity and relief (2) impact of pain on activity sleep and negative emotions (3) side effects of treatment (4) helpfulness of information about pain treatment (5) ability to participate in pain treatment decisions and (6) use of nonpharmacological strategies Adult medical surgical inpatients (n = 299) from 2 hospitals in different parts of the United States participated in this study Results provide support for the internal consistency of the instrument subscales construct validity and clinical feasibility Perspective This article presents the initial psychometric properties of the APS POQ R for quality improvement purposes of hospitalized adult patients Validation in additional groups of patients will be needed to demonstrate its generalizability (C) 2010 by the American Pain Society

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据