Acceptability and face validity of two mental health screening tools for use in the routine surgical setting.

Autor: 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.; Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, 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.; Surgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), Sydney, NSW, Australia., Lambert T; Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.; ccCHiP, Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia., Glozier N; Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.; Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia., Roberts R; RPA Institute of Academic Surgery (IAS), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and University of Sydney, PO Box M157, Sydney, NSW, Australia., Solomon MJ; RPA Institute of Academic Surgery (IAS), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and University of Sydney, PO Box M157, Sydney, NSW, Australia.; Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.; Surgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: BMC psychology [BMC Psychol] 2021 Oct 30; Vol. 9 (1), pp. 171. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Oct 30.
DOI: 10.1186/s40359-021-00672-w
Abstrakt: 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.
(© 2021. The Author(s).)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: