Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Acceptability and face validity of two mental health screening tools for use in the routine surgical setting.
McBride, Kate E; Steffens, Daniel; Lambert, Tim; Glozier, Nick; Roberts, Rachael; Solomon, Michael J.
Afiliación
  • McBride KE; RPA Institute of Academic Surgery (IAS), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and University of Sydney, PO Box M157, Sydney, NSW, Australia. kate.mcbride@health.nsw.gov.au.
  • Steffens D; Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. kate.mcbride@health.nsw.gov.au.
  • Lambert T; Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
  • Glozier N; Surgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), Sydney, NSW, Australia.
  • Roberts R; Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
  • Solomon MJ; ccCHiP, Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
BMC Psychol ; 9(1): 171, 2021 Oct 30.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34717771
BACKGROUND: Preoperative assessment of mental health rarely occurs within routine surgery. Any screening tool selected to form part of this process must be deemed practical, acceptable and valid by clinicians and consumers alike. This study aims to assess the acceptability and face validity of two existing mental health screening tools to select one for further development and use in the routine surgical setting. METHODS: A survey of clinicians and consumers was conducted from October 2020 to March 2021 at a tertiary hospital in Sydney, Australia. Using a Likert scale (1-5, lowest to highest rating), the clinicians evaluated four domains for acceptability and two for validity (six overall) and the consumers four domains for acceptability and one for validity (five overall) on the preoperative use of the amended Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) and the Somatic and Psychological Health Report-12 (SPHERE-12). Consensus was achieved through a rating of 4 or 5 being given by 70% or more of participants with domains able to remain unchanged. Free text responses were analysed into themes. RESULTS: A total of 73 participants (51 clinicians; 22 consumers) were included. The K10 received consensus scores (≥ 70%) in four out of six domains for clinicians (4/4 acceptability; 0/2 validity), and all five domains for consumers (4/4 acceptability; 1/1 validity). The SPHERE-12 received consensus scores (≥ 70%) in three domains for clinicians (3/4 acceptability; 0/2 validity), and three domains for consumers (3/4 acceptability; 0/1 validity). Six qualitative themes were described including (1) amendments to tool structure and language; (2) scale response options; (3) difficulty with somatic questions; (4) practicality and familiarity with K10; (5) challenges for specific patient cohorts and (6) timing considerations for patients. CONCLUSION: Adequate acceptability was established for the K10. However further development is required to strengthen its validity for this specific surgical cohort and purpose. Future research to determine the feasibility and acceptability of implementing and using the K10 in the routine surgical setting is now needed.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Estrés Psicológico / Salud Mental Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Screening_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: BMC Psychol Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Australia Pais de publicación: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Estrés Psicológico / Salud Mental Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Screening_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: BMC Psychol Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Australia Pais de publicación: Reino Unido