Revealing barriers and facilitators to use a new genetic test: comparison of three user involvement methods
- PDF / 395,649 Bytes
- 13 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 30 Downloads / 190 Views
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Revealing barriers and facilitators to use a new genetic test: comparison of three user involvement methods Martijn D. F. Rhebergen & Maaike J. Visser & Maarten M. Verberk & Annet F. Lenderink & Frank J. H. van Dijk & Sanja Kezic & Carel T. J. Hulshof
Received: 14 November 2011 / Accepted: 20 January 2012 / Published online: 9 February 2012 # The Author(s) 2012. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract We compared three common user involvement methods in revealing barriers and facilitators from intended users that might influence their use of a new genetic test. The study was part of the development of a new genetic test on the susceptibility to hand eczema for nurses. Eighty student nurses participated in five focus groups (n033), 15 interviews (n015) or questionnaires (n032). For each method, data were collected until saturation. We compared the mean number of items and relevant remarks that could influence the use of the genetic test obtained per method, divided by the number of participants in that method. Thematic content analysis was performed using MAXQDA software. The focus groups revealed 30 unique items compared to 29 in the interviews and 21 in the questionnaires. The interviews produced more items and relevant remarks per participant (1.9 and 8.4 pp) than focus groups (0.9 and 4.8 pp) or questionnaires (0.7 and 2.3 pp). All three involvement methods revealed relevant barriers and facilitators to use a new genetic test. Focus groups and interviews revealed substantially more items than questionnaires. Furthermore, this study suggests a preference for the use of interviews because the number of items per participant was higher than M. D. F. Rhebergen (*) : M. J. Visser : M. M. Verberk : F. J. H. van Dijk : S. Kezic : C. T. J. Hulshof Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box: 22700, Meibergdreef 9, 1100 DE, Amsterdam, the Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] A. F. Lenderink Dutch Center for Occupational Diseases, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box: 22660, Tafelbergweg 51, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
for focus groups and questionnaires. This conclusion may be valid for other genetic tests as well. Keywords User involvement . Genetic testing . Public opinion . Attitude . Contact dermatitis . Occupational health
Background Research knowledge reaches healthcare practice only partially and through a process that on average takes many years (Balas and Boren 2000; Glasziou and Haynes 2005). It is a complicated process that requires changes in behaviour, practices and policy from different stakeholders (Straus et al. 2009). An important activity or action before applying a new knowledge product in practice is the identification of items that can hinder or facilitate the use of this product (Graham et al. 2006; Straus et al. 2009). Barriers and facilitators are often related to the research product itself, the context and the implementation strategies used (Greenhalg
Data Loading...
