MAPPinfo - mapping quality of health information: Validation study of an assessment instrument.

BACKGROUND: Health information is a prerequisite for informed choices-decisions, made by individuals about their own health based on knowledge and in congruence with own preferences. Criteria for development, content and design have been defined in a corresponding guideline. However, no instruments exist that provide reasonably operationalised measurement items. Therefore, we drafted the checklist, MAPPinfo, addressing the existing criteria with 19 items. OBJECTIVES: The current study aimed to validate MAPPinfo. METHODS: Five substudies were conducted subsequently at the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany and the Medical University of Graz, Austria: (1) to determine content validity through expert reviews of the first draft, (2) to determine feasibility using 'think aloud' in piloting with untrained users, (3) to determine inter-rater reliability and criterion validity through a pretest on 50 health information materials, (4) to determine construct validity using 50 developers' self-declarations about development methods as a reference standard, (5) to determine divergent validity in comparison with the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) (expanded) Scale. The analyses used were qualitative methods and correlation-based methods for determining both inter-rater reliability and validity. RESULTS: The instrument was considered by experts to operationalise the existing guidelines convincingly. Health and nursing science students found it easy to understand and use. It also had good interrater reliability (mean of T coefficients = .79) and provided a very good estimate of the reference standard (Spearman's rho = .89), implying sound construct validity. Finally, comparison with the EQIP instrument revealed important and distinct areas of similarities and differences. CONCLUSIONS: The new instrument is ready for use as a screening instrument without the need for training. According to its underpinning concept the instrument exclusively comprises items which are justified by either ethics or research evidence, implying negligence of not yet evidence based, however, potentially important criteria. Further research is needed to complete the body of evidence-based criteria, aiming at an extension of the guideline and MAPPinfo. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: AsPredicted22546; date of registration: 24 July 2019.

Ready for SDM- evaluation of an interprofessional training module in shared decision making - A cluster randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: Ready for SDM was developed in Norway as a comprehensive modularized curriculum for health care providers (HCP). The current study evaluated the efficacy of one of the modules, a 2-hour interprofessional SDM training designed to enhance SDM competencies. METHODS: A cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted with eight District Psychiatric Centres randomized to wait-list control (CG) or intervention group (IG). Participants and trainers were not blinded to their allocation. The IG received a 2-hour didactic and interactive training, using video examples. The primary outcome was the agreement between the participants' and an expert assessment of patient involvement in a video recorded consultation. The SDM-knowledge score was a secondary outcome. RESULTS: Compared to the CG (n = 65), the IG (n = 69) judged involvement behavior in a communication example more accurately (mean difference of weighted T, adjusted for age and gender:=-0.098, p = 0.028) and demonstrated better knowledge (mean difference=-0.58; p = 0.014). A sensitivity analysis entering a random effect for cluster turned out not significant. CONCLUSION: The interprofessional group training can improve HCPs' SDM-competencies. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Addressing interprofessional teams using SDM communication training could supplement existing SDM training approaches. More research is needed to evaluate the training module's effects as a component of large-scale implementation of SDM.

MAPPinfo, mapping quality of health information: study protocol for a validation study of an assessment instrument.

INTRODUCTION: Health information is a prerequisite of informed decision-making. Criteria for development, content and presentation have recently been published in a corresponding guideline. Within a systematic search, 27 relevant checklists were identified, none of them, however, complying with the guideline or providing reasonably operationalised measurement items. Therefore, a draft of a checklist with 19 criteria was drafted. The current study aims at developing and validating this measure of quality. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The validation design consists of five single studies to be conducted at the University of Halle-Wittenberg/Germany and Graz/Austria. (1) Achieving content validity through expert reviews of the first draft, (2) achieving feasibility using 'think aloud' in piloting with untrained users, (3) pretesting the instrument applied to health information materials without use of secondary sources: determining inter-rater reliability and criterion validity, (4) determining construct validity using information on proceedings and methods in the development process provided by the developers and (5) determining divergent validity in comparison with the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQUIP) (expanded) Scale. The substudies will use varying samples of experts, students and developers and will apply the instrument to materials of various domains. Sample sizes will be adjusted to the particular research designs and questions. Analyses will employ qualitative methods, such as content analyses and discourse within the expert panel, and correlation-based methods both for determining inter-rater reliability and validity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The project is approved by the ethics committee of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (approval number: 2019 115). Results will be published, and the instrument made accessible on public health platforms. It is meant to become a certification standard. MAPPinfo can be used as a screening instrument without training or secondary sources. Although developed in the German language, the instrument will be applicable also in other languages. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: AsPredected22546; date of registration: 24 July 2019. PROTOCOL VERSION: July 2020.

Epidemiology of Head Injuries Focusing on Concussions in Team Contact Sports: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Although injuries to the head represent a small proportion of all sport injuries, they are of great concern due to their potential long-term consequences, which are even suspected in mild traumatic brain injuries. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to compare the incidence of concussions and other head injuries in elite level football, rugby, ice hockey and American Football. METHODS: Four electronic databases (CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, PubMed) were searched. Prospective cohort studies on the incidence of concussion in elite athletes aged 17 years or older that were published in an English-language peer-reviewed journal since 2000 were included. Two authors independently evaluated study eligibility and quality. The extracted data on concussions were pooled in a meta-analysis using an inverse-variance fixed-effects model. The extracted data on head injuries were reported in a narrative and tabular summary. RESULTS: The search yielded 7673 results of which 70 articles were included in the qualitative and 47 in the quantitative analysis. In our meta-analysis, we found the highest concussion incidences in rugby match play (3.89 and 3.00 concussions per 1000 h and athletic exposures (AEs), respectively), and the lowest in men's football training (0.01 and 0.08 per 1000 h and AEs, respectively). Overall, concussions and all head injuries were rare in training when compared to match play. Female players had an increased concussion risk in football and ice hockey when compared to male players. CONCLUSION: Future research should focus on concussion in women's contact sports, as there is little evidence available in this area. Methodological deficits are frequent in the current literature, especially regarding sample size and study power, and should be avoided.