1 / 35

Involving volunteer visitors in data collection

Involving volunteer visitors in data collection. Brian Callaghan. National Centre for Training and Education in Prosthetics and Orthotics University of Strathclyde Glasgow Scotland. Quality of life assessment in lower limb amputees (Callaghan and Condie, 2003).

diane
Download Presentation

Involving volunteer visitors in data collection

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Involving volunteer visitors in data collection Brian Callaghan National Centre for Training and Education in Prosthetics and Orthotics University of Strathclyde Glasgow Scotland

  2. Quality of life assessment in lower limb amputees (Callaghan and Condie, 2003) Callaghan BG, Condie ME (2003). A post-discharge quality of life outcome measure for lower limb amputees: test-retest reliability and construct validity. Clinical Rehabilitation 17, 858-865.

  3. Aims of Project • Adapt the Patient Generated Index (PGI) for Amputees • Test-Retest Reliability and Construct Validity Study

  4. Method • Participants (N = 39) • Inclusion Criteria • Over 16-years of Age • Unilateral /Transfemoral Amputation • Fitted with a Prosthesis • Discharged 1-Year • Patient Selection • SPARG Database • 7 Participating Rehabilitation Centres

  5. Groups

  6. Method • Procedure • Murray Foundation Visitors (N = 10) • 1st Visit (at home) • PGI and SF-12 • 2nd Visit (at home 1-month later) • PGI Only

  7. Method • Procedure • Murray Foundation Visitors (N = 10) • Before Study • Training day • After Study • Debriefing day

  8. Debriefing Day Murray Foundation Visitors (N = 9) Eight open-ended questions (given independently) to elicit experiences of MF visitors. Responses (with frequencies)

  9. Question.Do you feel that the training you received at The National Centre was sufficient to enable you to carry out your interviews?Answer.yes(x9)

  10. Question.What do you feel are the most important skills for carrying out interviews with fellow amputees?Answers.empathy (x2)patience (x1)listening (x5)guiding [pts] to understand questions (x1)

  11. Question.Do you think that the participants you interviewed gave more information to you than they would have to me [Brian]? Answer.yes (x9)

  12. Question.What sorts of things do you think the participants talked to you about that they might have felt uncomfortable talking to me about? Answers.NHS staff (x1)personal issues (x1)comfort/pain (x1)partners feelings (x1)hygiene (x1)sex (x1)toilet issues (x1)anxiety (x1)day to day activities (x1)

  13. Question.What do you think makes for a good interview? Answers.relaxed atmosphere (x3)willing participant (x1)one-to-one (x1)pt in good condition/no pain (x1)pt understands what's required (x1)pts home (x1)pt comfortable/not intimidated (x1)

  14. Question.What do you think makes for a bad interview?Answers.hurried (x1)no empathy (x2)over prompting (x1)other family present (x1)complicated questions (x1)pressure to say right thing (pt feels) (x1)tension (x1)interviewer uncomfortable (x1)“chip-on-shoulder amputee”?!

  15. Question.Are there any questions, or types of questions, that you would feel uncomfortable asking a participant? Answers.no (x3)sex/personal (x4)standard of living (x1)smoking/drinking (x1)

  16. Question.If you signed a declaration of confidentiality, but then a participant revealed to you during an interview that they might harm themselves in some way, would you tell me or anyone else? Answers.yes (x4)possibly (x3)no (x2)

  17. Psychosocial predictors of prosthetic use and recovery (Callaghan, Johnston, Condie, 2001-2004) Callaghan BG, Johnston M, Condie ME (2001-2004). Predictors of prosthetic fitting, use and recovery following lower limb amputation: illness related cognitions, attitudes towards prosthetic use, psychological distress and functional limitations. (funded by Chief Scientist Office (CSO), Scottish Health Executive)

  18. Method Participants • Participants (N = 170) • A 12-month Cohort of New Unilateral Lower Limb Amputees (transtibial and transfemoral) • Additional Inclusion Criteria • Over 50-years of Age • Fluent in English • Pass Cognitive Screening Test • PVD (Peripheral Vascular Disease) • 8 Participating Rehabilitation Centres

  19. Method Procedure • Questionnaire Development • TPB (Attitudes Towards Prosthetic Use) • Assessment Times • 3-4 weeks post-operative • 1-month post-discharge from rehabilitation • 6-months post-discharge from rehabilitation • Data Collection • Principle Researcher • Senior Physiotherapist • Murray Foundation Volunteers

  20. Training Day • Murray Foundation Visitors (N = 18) • Research Methods in Healthcare (Revisited) • Outline

  21. The New StudyIntroductionAims and purposesResearch questionsMethodsProceduresImplicationsHow results could benefit lower limb amputees in ScotlandDiscussion Talking about the study with visiting volunteers Questions and answers

  22. The Measures To Be UsedIntroduction to the measuresGuidelines for useInstruction booklets will again be providedLCIRLOCHADSFMA (questions 3, 4, 6 and 11)PGI (revisited)

  23. Interview Technique (revisited) Understanding ethical conduct Understanding confidentiality Understanding objectivity Understanding impartiality Interview demonstration by Research Fellow Practice interviewing techniquesVisiting Volunteers

  24. Administrative ProcedureUnderstanding materials the interview package (e.g.,questionnaire, guidelines for use, return stamped addressed envelope, etc.)Understanding procedure (e.g., returning questionnaires, contacting Research Fellow, etc)How visits are arranged by Research FellowHow visits are allocated to a volunteer visitorBeing in contacting with Research Fellow at all times!

  25. Interim Feedback Day • Murray Foundation Visitors (N = 8) • Matters Arising • Difficult interviewees • Lost follow-ups • Participants encouraged by seeing visitor!

  26. Social Cognition Models Theory of Planned Behaviour Behavioural Beliefs Attitude Toward the Behaviour Normative Beliefs Subjective Norm Intention Behaviour Control Beliefs Perceived Behavioural Control Ajzen I (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organisational Behaviour and Decision Process50, 179-211.

  27. Theory of Planned Behaviour If I value the expected outcomes as being beneficial to me? Normative Beliefs Subjective Norm I will intend to do this behaviour? Behaviour If I want to comply with the perceived approval of other people/groups I value? If I believe I have the skills and resources required to overcome likely obstacles? Ajzen I (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organisational Behaviour and Decision Process50, 179-211.

  28. Theory of Planned Behaviour I would like to be as mobile and independent as this visitor? Normative Beliefs Subjective Norm I will intend to do a behaviour? Behaviour (Prosthetic Use) I would like to impress my peers the way this visitor has impressed me? I have a prosthesis too and if this visitor can do it then so can I? Ajzen I (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organisational Behaviour and Decision Process50, 179-211.

  29. Self-efficacy Perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one’s capabilities to organise and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainment or manage prospective situations (Bandura, 1986). Bandura A (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

  30. Social Cognition Models Self-efficacy (in Social Cognitive Model) Outcome Expectations Self-efficacy Proximal Goals Behaviour Impediments Bandura A (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behaviour And Human Decision Processes 50, 248-287.

  31. Enhancing Self-efficacy Mastery Experiences Vicarious Modeling Self-efficacy Social Persuasion Somatic /Mood States Bandura A (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.

  32. Enhancing Self-efficacy Interpret information from.. ..practicing the behaviour ..watching others perform the behaviour Self-efficacy ..being persuaded you can do the behaviour ..biological and emotional feedback Bandura A (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.

  33. Enhancing Self-efficacy Interpret information from.. ..practicing the behaviour ..watching fellow amputees adapting and coping well Self-efficacy ..being encouraged by fellow amputees’ verbal support ..biological and emotional feedback Bandura A (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.

More Related