Patient and physician shared decision-making behaviors in oncology: Evidence on adequate measurement properties of the iSHARE questionnaires.

OBJECTIVES: We have developed two Dutch questionnaires to assess the shared decision-making (SDM) process in oncology; the iSHAREpatient and iSHAREphysician. In this study, we aimed to determine: scores, construct validity, test-retest agreement (iSHAREpatient), and inter-rater (iSHAREpatient-iSHAREphysician) agreement. METHODS: Physicians from seven Dutch hospitals recruited cancer patients, and completed the iSHAREphysician and SDM-Questionnaire-physician version. Their patients completed the: iSHAREpatient, nine-item SDM-Questionnaire, Decisional Conflict Scale, Combined Outcome Measure for Risk communication And treatment Decision-making Effectiveness, and five-item Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions. We formulated, respectively, one (iSHAREphysician) and 10 (iSHAREpatient) a priori hypotheses regarding correlations between the iSHARE questionnaires and questionnaires assessing related constructs. To assess test-retest agreement patients completed the iSHAREpatient again 1-2 weeks later. RESULTS: In total, 151 treatment decision-making processes with unique patients were rated. Dimension and total iSHARE scores were high both in patients and physicians. The hypothesis on the iSHAREphysician and 9/10 hypotheses on the iSHAREpatient were confirmed. Test-retest and inter-rater agreement were>.60 for most items. CONCLUSIONS: The iSHARE questionnaires show high scores, have good construct validity, substantial test-retest agreement, and moderate inter-rater agreement. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Results from the iSHARE questionnaires can inform both physician- and patient-directed efforts to improve SDM in clinical practice.

Measuring shared decision making in oncology: Development and first testing of the iSHAREpatient and iSHAREphysician questionnaires.

BACKGROUND: Existing measures to assess shared decision making (SDM) have often been developed based on an ill-defined underlying construct, and many assess physician behaviours only or focus on a single patient-physician encounter. OBJECTIVE: To (a) develop a patient and a physician questionnaire to measure SDM in oncology and (b) determine their content validity and comprehensibility. METHODS: A systematic review of SDM models and an oncology-specific SDM model informed the domains of the SDM construct. We formulated items for each SDM domain. Cancer patients and physicians rated content validity in an online questionnaire. We assumed a formative measurement model and performed online field-testing in cancer patients to inform further item reduction. We tested item comprehension in cognitive interviews with cancer patients and physicians. RESULTS: We identified 17 domains and formulated 132 items. Twelve cancer patients rated content validity at item level, and 11 physicians rated content validity at domain level. We field-tested the items among 131 cancer patients and conducted cognitive interviews with eight patients and five physicians. These phases resulted in the 15-item iSHAREpatient and 15-item iSHAREphysician questionnaires, covering 13 domains. CONCLUSIONS: We thoroughly developed the iSHARE questionnaires. They both assess patient and physician behaviours and cover the entire SDM process rather than a single consultation.

The Cervical Radiculopathy Impact Scale: development and evaluation of a new functional outcome measure for cervical radicular syndrome.

Objective: To develop and validate an outcome scale for the cervical radicular syndrome and to build a mapping, predicting EQ-5D utility from the new scale.Study design and setting: An item pool was developed based on literature and patient and clinician interviews. Item selection was based on symptomatology, factor analysis, and internal consistency. We assessed: (a) test-retest reliability by standard error of measurement and intraclass correlation coefficients; (b) construct validity by testing 22 hypotheses on relationships with existing measures and known-group differences. For the mapping, performance was assessed by mean absolute error and root mean squared error.Results: A total of 254 patients with cervical radicular syndrome completed the first questionnaire, 61 stable patients a retest. Item selection led to a 21-item questionnaire consisting of three subscales: Symptoms, Energy and postures, and Actions and activities. Standard error of measurement values ranged from 6.7 to 11.2 on a 0 to 100 scale. All subscales showed good reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients: 0.84, 0.87, and 0.94). All hypotheses for construct validity were confirmed. A linear utility mapping was preferred, with reasonable statistical performance.Conclusion: We developed a reliable and valid cervical radicular syndrome specific outcome scale, called the Cervical Radiculopathy Impact Scale (CRIS). This new questionnaire may facilitate (cost-)effectiveness studies in this field.Implications for RehabilitationThe cervical radicular syndrome is a frequently occurring and invalidating health problem, which causes severe radiating pain in the arm and/or hand, which can be accompanied by motor and/or sensory deficits.The Cervical Radiculopathy Impact Scale (CRIS) is a newly developed self-report questionnaire which covers measurement of symptoms and limitations in patients with cervical radiculopathy due to irradiating pain, tingling sensations and sensory loss in the arm in combination with neck disability.The CRIS consists of 21 items divided over three subscales: (i) symptoms, (ii) energy and postures, and (iii) actions and activities.The CRIS shows good content validity, test-retest reliability, construct validity and is able to discriminate between groups.The CRIS predicts EQ-5D utility and is therefore useful for (cost)effectiveness studies in this field.

Role of patient preferences in clinical practice guidelines: a multiple methods study using guidelines from oncology as a case.

OBJECTIVE: Many treatment decisions are preference-sensitive and call for shared decision-making, notably when benefits are limited or uncertain, and harms impact quality of life. We explored if clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) acknowledge preference-sensitive decisions in how they motivate and phrase their recommendations. DESIGN: We performed a qualitative analysis of the content of CPGs and verified the results in semistructured interviews with CPG panel members. SETTING: Dutch oncology CPGs issued in 2010 or later, concerning primary treatment with curative intent. PARTICIPANTS: 14 CPG panel members. MAIN OUTCOMES: For treatment recommendations from six CPG modules, two researchers extracted the following: strength of recommendation in terms of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and its consistency with the CPG text; completeness of presentation of benefits and harms; incorporation of patient preferences; statements on the panel's benefits-harm trade-off underlying recommendation; and advice on patient involvement in decision-making. RESULTS: We identified 32 recommendations, 18 were acknowledged preference-sensitive decisions. Three of 14 strong recommendations should have been weak based on the module text. The reporting of benefits and harms, and their probabilities, was sufficiently complete and clear to inform the strength of the recommendation in one of the six modules only. Numerical probabilities were seldom presented. None of the modules presented information on patient preferences. CPG panel's preferences were not made explicit, but appeared to have impacted 15 of 32 recommendations. Advice to involve patients and their preferences in decision-making was given for 20 recommendations (14 weak). Interviewees confirmed these findings. Explanations for lack of information were, for example, that clinicians know the information and that CPGs must be short. Explanations for trade-offs made were cultural-historical preferences, compliance with daily care, presumed role of CPGs and lack of time. CONCLUSIONS: The motivation and phrasing of CPG recommendations do not stimulate choice awareness and a neutral presentation of options, thus hindering shared decision-making.

Key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To (1) provide an up-to-date overview of shared decision making (SDM)-models, (2) give insight in the prominence of components present in SDM-models, (3) describe who is identified as responsible within the components (patient, healthcare professional, both, none), (4) show the occurrence of SDM-components over time, and (5) present an SDM-map to identify SDM-components seen as key, per healthcare setting. DESIGN: Systematic review. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed articles in English presenting a new or adapted model of SDM. INFORMATION SOURCES: Academic Search Premier, Cochrane, Embase, Emcare, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published up to and including September 2, 2019. RESULTS: Forty articles were included, each describing a unique SDM-model. Twelve models were generic, the others were specific to a healthcare setting. Fourteen were based on empirical data, 26 primarily on analytical thinking. Fifty-three different elements were identified and clustered into 24 components. Overall, Describe treatment options was the most prominent component across models. Components present in >50% of models were: Make the decision (75%), Patient preferences (65%), Tailor information (65%), Deliberate (58%), Create choice awareness (55%), and Learn about the patient (53%). In the majority of the models (27/40), both healthcare professional and patient were identified as actors. Over time, Describe treatment options and Make the decision are the two components which are present in most models in any time period. Create choice awareness stood out for being present in a markedly larger proportion of models over time. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides an up-to-date overview of SDM-models, showing that SDM-models quite consistently share some components but that a unified view on what SDM is, is still lacking. Clarity about what SDM constitutes is essential though for implementation, assessment, and research purposes. A map is offered to identify SDM-components seen as key. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration CRD42015019740.

Do Shared Decision-Making Measures Reflect Key Elements of Shared Decision Making? A Content Review of Coding Schemes.

Background. There is a growing need for valid shared decision-making (SDM) measures. We aimed to determine whether the items of extant SDM observer-based coding schemes assess the 4 key elements of SDM. Methods. Items of SDM coding schemes were extracted and categorized. Except for the 4 key elements of SDM (fostering choice awareness, informing about options, discussing patient preferences, and making a decision), (sub)categories were created inductively. Two researchers categorized items independently and in duplicate. Results. Five of 12 coding schemes assessed all 4 SDM elements. Seven schemes did not measure "fostering choice awareness," and 3 did not measure "discussing patient preferences." Seventy of 194 items (36%) could not be classified into one of the key SDM elements. Items assessing key SDM elements most often assessed "informing about options" (n = 57/124, 46%). Conclusion. Extant SDM coding schemes often do not assess all key SDM elements and have a strong focus on information provision while other crucial elements of SDM are underrepresented. Caution is therefore needed in reporting and interpreting the resulting SDM scores.

Humanistic communication in the evaluation of shared decision making: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent to which evaluations of shared decision making (SDM) assess the extent and quality of humanistic communication (i.e., respect, compassion, empathy). METHODS: We systematically searched Web of Science and Scopus for prospective studies published between 2012 and February 2018 that evaluated SDM in actual clinical decisions using validated SDM measures. Two reviewers working independently and in duplicate extracted all statements from eligible studies and all items from SDM measurement instruments that referred to humanistic patient-clinician communication. RESULTS: Of the 154 eligible studies, 14 (9%) included ≥1 statements regarding humanistic communication, either in framing the study (N = 2), measuring impact (e.g., empathy, respect, interpersonal skills; N = 9), as patients'/clinicians' accounts of SDM (N = 2), in interpreting study results (N = 3), and in discussing implications of study findings (N = 3). Of the 192 items within the 11 SDM measurement instruments deployed in the included studies, 7 (3.6%) items assessed humanistic communication. CONCLUSION: Assessments of the quality of SDM focus narrowly on SDM technique and rarely assess humanistic aspects of patient-clinician communication. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Considering SDM as merely a technique may reduce SDM's patient-centeredness and undermine its' contribution to patient care.

The quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision making: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To inventory instruments assessing the process of shared decision making and appraise their measurement quality, taking into account the methodological quality of their validation studies. METHODS: In a systematic review we searched seven databases (PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Academic Search Premier) for studies investigating instruments measuring the process of shared decision making. Per identified instrument, we assessed the level of evidence separately for 10 measurement properties following a three-step procedure: 1) appraisal of the methodological quality using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist, 2) appraisal of the psychometric quality of the measurement property using three possible quality scores, 3) best-evidence synthesis based on the number of studies, their methodological and psychometrical quality, and the direction and consistency of the results. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO: CRD42015023397. RESULTS: We included 51 articles describing the development and/or evaluation of 40 shared decision-making process instruments: 16 patient questionnaires, 4 provider questionnaires, 18 coding schemes and 2 instruments measuring multiple perspectives. There is an overall lack of evidence for their measurement quality, either because validation is missing or methods are poor. The best-evidence synthesis indicated positive results for a major part of instruments for content validity (50%) and structural validity (53%) if these were evaluated, but negative results for a major part of instruments when inter-rater reliability (47%) and hypotheses testing (59%) were evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the lack of evidence on measurement quality, the choice for the most appropriate instrument can best be based on the instrument's content and characteristics such as the perspective that they assess. We recommend refinement and validation of existing instruments, and the use of COSMIN-guidelines to help guarantee high-quality evaluations.

Translation and validation of the 15-item Myasthenia Gravis Quality of life scale in Dutch.

INTRODUCTION: The 15-item Myasthenia Gravis Quality of Life (MG-QOL15) scale has been developed to assess the health-related quality of life of patients with myasthenia gravis (MG). The aim of this study was to translate the original English version into Dutch and to test the test-retest reliability and construct validity. METHODS: Fifty patients with MG were included. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency were assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Cronbach α. Construct validity was assessed by testing 5 predefined hypotheses. RESULTS: A good test-retest reliability was confirmed with an ICC of 0.866. The Cronbach α was 0.93. The predefined hypotheses were confirmed in 80% of cases, which points to good construct validity. DISCUSSION: The Dutch MG-QOL15 has good test-retest reliability and good construct validity. It can be used for research in a Dutch-speaking population. It is also suitable for monitoring individual patients in clinical practice. Muscle Nerve 57: 206-211, 2018.

Calculating Preference Weights for the Labor and Delivery Index: A Discrete Choice Experiment on Women's Birth Experiences.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to calculate preference weights for the Labor and Delivery Index (LADY-X) to make it suitable as a utility measure for perinatal care studies. METHODS: In an online discrete choice experiment, 18 pairs of hypothetical scenarios were presented to respondents, from which they had to choose a preferred option. The scenarios describe the birth experience in terms of the seven LADY-X attributes. A D-efficient discrete choice experiment design with priors based on a small sample (N = 110) was applied. Two samples were gathered, women who had recently given birth and subjects from the general population. Both samples were analyzed separately using a panel mixed logit (MMNL) model. Using the panel mixed multinomial logit (MMNL) model results and accounting for preference heterogeneity, we calculated the average preference weights for LADY-X attribute levels. These were transformed to represent a utility score between 0 and 1, with 0 representing the worst and 1 representing the best birth experience. RESULTS: In total, 1097 women who had recently given birth and 367 subjects from the general population participated. Greater value was placed on differences between bottom and middle attribute levels than on differences between middle and top levels. The attributes that resulted in larger utility increases than the other attributes were "feeling of safety" in the sample of women who had recently given birth and "feeling of safety" and "availability of professionals" in the general population sample. CONCLUSIONS: By using the derived preference weights, LADY-X has the potential to be used as a utility measure for perinatal (cost-) effectiveness studies.

Good reliability and validity for a new utility instrument measuring the birth experience, the Labor and Delivery Index.

OBJECTIVES: To validate the Labor and Delivery Index (LADY-X), a new delivery-specific utility measure. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In a test-retest design, women were surveyed online, 6 to 8 weeks postpartum and again 1 to 2 weeks later. For reliability testing, we assessed the standard error of measurement (S.E.M.) and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). For construct validity, we tested hypotheses on the association with comparison instruments (Mackey Childbirth Satisfaction Rating Scale and Wijma Delivery Experience Questionnaire), both on domain and total score levels. We assessed known-group differences using eight obstetrical indicators: method and place of birth, induction, transfer, control over pain medication, complications concerning mother and child, and experienced control. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 308 women, 257 (83%) completed the retest. The distribution of LADY-X scores was skewed. The reliability was good, as the ICC exceeded 0.80 and the S.E.M. was 0.76. Requirements for good construct validity were fulfilled: all hypotheses for convergent and divergent validity were confirmed, and six of eight hypotheses for known-group differences were confirmed as all differences were statistically significant (P-values: <0.001-0.023), but for two tests, difference scores did not exceed the S.E.M. CONCLUSION: The LADY-X demonstrates good reliability and construct validity. Despite its skewed distribution, the LADY-X can discriminate between groups. With the preference weights available, the LADY-X might fulfill the need for a utility measure for cost-effectiveness studies for perinatal care interventions.

A comprehensive representation of the birth-experience: identification and prioritization of birth-specific domains based on a mixed-method design.

BACKGROUND: In obstetrics, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies often present several specific outcomes with likely contradicting results and may not reflect what is important for women. A birth-specific outcome measure that combines the core domains into one utility score would solve this problem. The aim of this study was to investigate which domains are most relevant for women's overall experience of labor and birth and should be included in such a measure. METHODS: A sequential mixed-method design with three steps was applied. First, the domains were identified by literature review and online focus groups consisting of pregnant women, women who recently gave birth, and their partners. Second, in a prioritizing task, women who recently gave birth and professionals (midwives, gynecologists, and researchers) selected and ranked their top seven domains. Third, the domains that were most frequently selected and had the highest ranking scores determined the basis for a consensus discussion with experts, whereby the definitive list of domains was formed. RESULTS: In the first step, 34 birth-specific domains were identified, which cover domains regarding the caregivers, intrapersonal aspects of the mother, partner support, and contextual and medical aspects of birth. Based on the prioritizing task results (step 2) of 96 women and 89 professionals, this list was reduced to 14 most relevant domains. In a consensus discussion, the final seven domains were selected by combining several of the 14 remaining domains and giving priority to the domains indicated to be relevant by mothers. The seven definite domains were: 1) availability of competent health professionals; 2) health professionals' support; 3) provision of information; 4) health professionals' response to needs and requests; 5) feelings of safety; 6) worries about the child's health; and 7) experienced duration until the first contact with the child. CONCLUSIONS: The experienced availability and quality of received care, concerns about safety and the baby's health, and first contact with the baby are regarded as key aspects for a mother's overall birth experience. Therefore, these domains are considered to be the most crucial for inclusion in a birth-specific outcome measure.

Mental Vitality @ Work: The effectiveness of a mental module for workers' health surveillance for nurses and allied health professionals, comparing two approaches in a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare two approaches for a worker's health surveillance (WHS) mental module on work functioning and work-related mental health. METHODS: Nurses and allied health professionals from one organisation were cluster-randomised at ward level to e-mental health care (EMH) (N = 579) or occupational physician care (OP) (N = 591). Both groups received screening and personalised feedback on impaired work functioning and mental health. Positively screened participants received an invitation to follow a self-help EMH intervention, or for a consultation with an OP. The primary outcome was impaired work functioning. Follow-up was performed after 3 and 6 months. Linear mixed models were applied to determine differences. Non-inferiority of the EMH-care approach was demonstrated if the mean absolute improvement on work functioning in the OP-care group was ≤10 points higher than the EMH-care group. RESULTS: Analyses were performed on the positively screened participants (almost 80 %) (EMH N = 75; OP N = 108) and all participants (EMH N = 98; OP N = 142). Both groups improved over time regarding impaired work functioning. A considerable percentage of participants had improved relevantly at follow-up regarding work functioning (3 months: EMH 30 %, OP 46 %; 6 months: EMH 36 %, OP 41 %) compared to baseline. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups, and the difference did not exceed the pre-defined criterion for non-inferiority. CONCLUSION: The OP-care approach for a WHS mental module trended towards better performance in targeting work functioning, but our findings indicate that the EMH-care approach was non-inferior. However, the high dropout rate and low compliance to EMH interventions should be taken into account.

The mental vitality @ work study: effectiveness of a mental module for workers' health surveillance for nurses and allied health care professionals on their help-seeking behavior.

OBJECTIVES: To study the effectiveness of a mental module for workers' health surveillance for health care workers. METHODS: Nurses and allied health care professionals from one organization were cluster-randomized at ward level to an intervention or control group. The intervention included screening for work functioning impairments and mental health complaints. Positively screened workers were invited to visit their occupational physician. Outcome measures, including help-seeking behavior, work functioning, and mental health, were assessed at baseline, 3-month follow-up, and 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: An effect of study-group × time interaction on help-seeking behavior was found (P = 0.02). Workers in the intervention group showed less work functioning impairments over time than the control group (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: The module can be used to stimulate help seeking from the occupational physician and to improve functioning in workers with mild to moderate work functioning, mental health complaints, or both. TRIAL NUMBER: NTR2786.

Effect of an E-mental health approach to workers' health surveillance versus control group on work functioning of hospital employees: a cluster-RCT.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an e-mental health (EMH) approach to workers' health surveillance (WHS) targeting work functioning (WF) and mental health (MH) of healthcare professionals in a randomised controlled trial. METHODS: Nurses and allied health professionals (N = 1140) were cluster-randomised at ward level to the intervention (IG) or control group (CG). The intervention consisted of two parts: (a) online screening and personalised feedback on impaired WF and MH, followed by (b) a tailored offer of self-help EMH interventions. CG received none of these parts. Primary outcome was impaired WF (Nurses Work Functioning Questionnaire), assessed at baseline and after three and six months. Analyses were performed in the positively screened subgroup (i) and in all participants (ii). RESULTS: Participation rate at baseline was 32% (NIG = 178; NCG = 188). Eighty-two percent screened positive for at least mild impairments in WF and/or MH (NIG = 139; NCG = 161). All IG-participants (N = 178) received part (a) of the intervention, nine participants (all positively screened, 6%) followed an EMH intervention to at least some extent. Regarding the subgroup of positively screened participants (i), both IG and CG improved over time regarding WF (non-significant between-group difference). After six months, 36% of positively screened IG-participants (18/50) had a relevant WF improvement compared to baseline, versus 28% (32/115) of positively screened CG-participants (non-significant difference). In the complete sample (ii), IG and CG improved over time but IG further improved between three and six months while CG did not (significant interaction effect). CONCLUSIONS: In our study with a full compliance rate of 6% and substantial drop-out leading to a small and underpowered sample, we could not demonstrate that an EMH-approach to WHS is more effective to improve WF and MH than a control group. The effect found in the complete sample of participants is not easily interpreted. Reported results may be useful for future meta-analytic work. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register NTR2786.

Mental Vitality @ Work--a workers' health surveillance mental module for nurses and allied health care professionals: process evaluation of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the process of workers' health surveillance (WHS) targeting work functioning and mental health of health care professionals, alongside a randomized controlled trial comparing two strategies. METHODS: Nurses and allied health care professionals working in one hospital were invited. Process indicators were assessed using methods such as questionnaires and track-and-trace data. RESULTS: All participants (32%; N = 369) received screening and personalized feedback. In group 1, 41% went to a preventive consultation with their occupational physician. Protocol adherence of participating occupational physicians (n = 5) was high. They regarded the WHS mental module to be meaningful. In group 2, 16% logged into an e-mental health intervention. Most participants would appreciate a future offer of the WHS. CONCLUSIONS: The WHS mental module was well received and fitted in the occupational health service activities. Nevertheless, response and compliance should be improved.

Interpretability of change in the Nurses Work Functioning Questionnaire: minimal important change and smallest detectable change.

OBJECTIVES: The present study evaluates the interpretability of individual changes and assesses the minimal important change (MIC) for improvement and the smallest detectable change (SDC) of the Nurses Work Functioning Questionnaire (NWFQ). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Data of two time points, baseline and 3-month follow-up, of a randomized controlled trial were used. A total of 358 nurses and allied health professionals of one Dutch academic medical center participated at both measurement points. Separate MIC values were calculated for the total score of the NWFQ and its six subscales, using two anchor-based methods: mean change and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve methods. Two methods for baseline corrections were applied: subgroup analyses and MIC calculation based on relative change scores. The SDCs were calculated using the standard error of the measurement. RESULTS: MIC values ranged from 3.4 to 8.3 for the mean change method and from 1.5 to 9.5 for the ROC curve method. In a subgroup with high-baseline scores, the MIC values of the two methods ranged from 4.4 to 29 and 9.5 to 41.5, respectively. The SDC values ranged from 7.2 to 17. Only one MIC value exceeded the SDC; however, 10 of the 14 MIC values exceeded the SDC in the high-baseline group. CONCLUSION: Three of the seven NWFQ scales exhibited sufficient interpretability of individual change. For four scales, conclusions on the interpretability of change cannot yet be drawn. SDCs were small compared with the scale range.

Psychometric properties of the Nurses Work Functioning Questionnaire (NWFQ).

OBJECTIVES: The Nurses Work Functioning Questionnaire (NWFQ) is a 50-item self-report questionnaire specifically developed for nurses and allied health professionals. Its seven subscales measure impairments in the work functioning due to common mental disorders. Aim of this study is to evaluate the psychometric properties of the NWFQ, by assessing reproducibility and construct validity. METHODS: The questionnaire was administered to 314 nurses and allied health professionals with a re-test in 112 subjects. Reproducibility was assessed by the intraclass correlations coefficients (ICC) and the standard error of measurement (SEM). For construct validity, correlations were calculated with a general work functioning scale, the Endicott Work Productivity Scale (EWPS) (convergent validity) and with a physical functioning scale (divergent validity). For discriminative validity, a Mann Whitney U test was performed testing for significant differences between subjects with mental health complaints and without. RESULTS: All subscales showed good reliability (ICC: 0.72-0.86), except for one (ICC = 0.16). Convergent validity was good in six subscales, correlations ranged from 0.38-0.62. However, in one subscale the correlation with the EWPS was too low (0.22). Divergent validity was good in all subscales based on correlations ranged from (-0.06)-(-0.23). Discriminative validity was good in all subscales, based on significant differences between subjects with and without mental health complaints (p<0.001-p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The NWFQ demonstrates good psychometric properties, for six of the seven subscales. Subscale "impaired decision making" needs improvement before further use.

The Mental Vitality @ Work study: design of a randomized controlled trial on the effect of a workers' health surveillance mental module for nurses and allied health professionals.

BACKGROUND: Employees in health care service are at high risk for developing mental health complaints. The effects of mental health complaints on work can have serious consequences for the quality of care provided by these workers. To help health service workers remain healthy and productive, preventive actions are necessary. A Workers' Health Surveillance (WHS) mental module may be an effective strategy to monitor and promote good (mental) health and work performance. The objective of this paper is to describe the design of a three arm cluster randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of a WHS mental module for nurses and allied health professionals. Two strategies for this WHS mental module will be compared along with data from a control group. Additionally, the cost effectiveness of the approaches will be evaluated from a societal perspective. METHODS: The study is designed as a cluster randomized controlled trial consisting of three arms (two intervention groups, 1 control group) with randomization at ward level. The study population consists of 86 departments in one Dutch academic medical center with a total of 1731 nurses and allied health professionals. At baseline, after three months and after six months of follow-up, outcomes will be assessed by online questionnaires. In both intervention arms, participants will complete a screening to detect problems in mental health and work functioning and receive feedback on their screening results. In cases of impairments in mental health or work functioning in the first intervention arm, a consultation with an occupational physician will be offered. The second intervention arm offers a choice of self-help e-mental health interventions, which will be tailored based on each individual's mental health state and work functioning. The primary outcomes will be help-seeking behavior and work functioning. Secondary outcomes will be mental health and wellbeing. Furthermore, cost-effectiveness in both intervention arms will be assessed, and a process evaluation will be performed. DISCUSSION: When it is proven effective compared to a control group, a WHS mental module for nurses and allied health professionals could be implemented and used on a regular basis by occupational health services in hospitals to improve employees' mental health and work functioning. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR2786.

The impact of common mental disorders on the work functioning of nurses and allied health professionals: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to inventory aspects of work functioning of nurses and allied health professionals that are affected by common mental disorders. DESIGN: A systematic review of psychological and occupational health literature was performed. DATA SOURCES: A sensitive systematic literature search based on index terms and text words was conducted in four electronic databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cinahl. The literature search was limited to journal articles published between 1998 and 2008, written in English, German, or Dutch. REVIEW METHODS: For inclusion, studies had to examine a relationship between common mental disorders and a measure of work functioning in nurses or allied health professionals. No restrictions on study design were handled. Methodological quality was assessed for each study. The data were categorized into themes, for which the strength of evidence was assessed using six levels of evidence. RESULTS: Sixteen of 2792 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 13 had a cross-sectional design, 1 was a vignette study, and 2 were narrative reviews. In all studies, the subjects were nurses. The retrieved aspects of sub-optimal work functioning due to common mental disorders were merged into 15 themes. Strong evidence was found for five themes: general errors, medication errors, near misses, patient safety, and patient satisfaction. Moderate evidence was found that common mental disorders are associated with complex motor skills and with general performance; while evidence for an association between common mental disorders and needle stick injuries was inconclusive. Seven themes had only narrative evidence: interpersonal behaviour, energy, focus on goals and responsibility, work speed, avoiding work while on the job, coping with emotions, and motivation. CONCLUSION: Common mental disorders were found to be associated with various impairments in work functioning in nurses, these include task-related, intrapersonal and interpersonal aspects of work. In particular, strong evidence was found for an association between common mental disorders and general errors, medication errors, near errors, patient safety, and patient satisfaction. These results provide input for preventive actions to improve both health and work functioning in health care workers.