Abstract
BackgroundUser-friendly information at the point of care for health care professionals should be well structured, rapidly accessible, comprehensive, and trustworthy. The reliability of information and the associated methodological process must be clear. There is no standard tool to evaluate the trustworthiness of such point-of-care (POC) information.ObjectiveWe aim to develop and validate a new tool for assessment of trustworthiness of evidence-based POC resources to enhance the quality of POC resources and facilitate evidence-based practice.MethodsWe designed the Critical Appraisal of Point-of-Care Information (CAPOCI) tool based on the criteria important for assessment of trustworthiness of POC information, reported in a previously published review. A group of health care professionals and methodologists (the authors of this paper) defined criteria for the CAPOCI tool in an iterative process of discussion and pilot testing until consensus was reached. In the next step, all criteria were subject to content validation with a Delphi study. We invited an international panel of 10 experts to rate their agreement with the relevance and wording of the criteria and to give feedback. Consensus was reached when 70% of the experts agreed. When no consensus was reached, we reformulated the criteria based on the experts’ comments for a next round of the Delphi study. This process was repeated until consensus was reached for each criterion. In a last step, the interrater reliability of the CAPOCI tool was calculated with a 2-tailed Kendall tau correlation coefficient to quantify the agreement between 2 users who piloted the CAPOCI tool on 5 POC resources. Two scoring systems were tested: a 3-point ordinal scale and a 7-point Likert scale.ResultsAfter validation, the CAPOCI tool was designed with 11 criteria that focused on methodological quality and author-related information. The criteria assess authorship, literature search, use of preappraised evidence, critical appraisal of evidence, expert opinions, peer review, timeliness and updating, conflict of interest, and commercial support. Interrater agreement showed substantial agreement between 2 users for scoring with the 3-point ordinal scale (τ=.621, P<.01) and scoring with the 7-point Likert scale (τ=.677, P<.01).ConclusionsThe CAPOCI tool may support validation teams in the assessment of trustworthiness of POC resources. It may also provide guidance for producers of POC resources.
Highlights
Evidence-based medicine (EBM) aims to integrate the experience of the health care professional, the values of the patient, and the best available scientific information to guide clinical decision making
After validation, the Critical Appraisal of Point-of-Care Information (CAPOCI) tool was designed with 11 criteria that focused on methodological quality and author-related information
Based on the results of the systematic review, the CAPOCI tool was initially defined with 9 criteria
Summary
Evidence-based medicine (EBM) aims to integrate the experience of the health care professional, the values of the patient, and the best available scientific information to guide clinical decision making. Point-of-care (POC) information is defined as high-quality information needed by health care professionals when they interact with the patient; this information should be well structured, quick and accessible and, most importantly, relevant and reliable [5,6]. For systematic reviews and clinical guidelines, well-developed critical appraisal tools are available (eg, AMSTAR [A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews] [13,14] and AGREE II [Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II] [15]) These tools are not appropriate for the evaluation of POC information. There is no standard tool to evaluate the trustworthiness of such point-of-care (POC) information
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.