| Title |
Validation of a glaucoma knowledge assessment in glaucoma patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s117704 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Veena S Rao, Esteban A Peralta, Jullia A Rosdahl |
| Abstract |
To develop metrics to identify knowledge deficits and barriers to learning in glaucoma patients, this study seeks to validate a glaucoma knowledge assessment to use in the evaluation of knowledge in glaucoma patients. Glaucoma treatment adherence appears to improve when patients demonstrate a greater knowledge of the disease and its treatment. This study seeks to validate a glaucoma knowledge assessment in a glaucoma patient population to assist in patient educational assessments and interventions. The National Eye Health Education Program's (NEHEP) glaucoma knowledge assessment has previously been suggested as a useful measure to assess glaucoma patient's knowledge. This questionnaire was administered in glaucoma patients along with a more comprehensive 49-question examination. Demographic data and health literacy were assessed. Statistical analyses were performed to assess the validity of the assessments. A total of 12 glaucoma patients completed the knowledge assessments. The mean ± standard deviation age of the patients was 69±14 years, and the duration of glaucoma was 14±13 years. The participants' mean score on the NEHEP assessment was 7.3±0.8 (of 10, 73% correct) vs 29.3±7.3 (of 49, 60% correct) on the comprehensive assessment. The value of coefficient α was 0.592 for NEHEP and 0.872 for the cumulative assessment. The P-value (proportion of examinees answering correctly) ranged from 0 to 1 for individual questions. Item point-biserial correlation values for each question ranged from -0.402 to 0.813. The NEHEP quiz may be a good starting point for the development of a reliable knowledge assessment tool to measure and monitor glaucoma knowledge, due to its concise nature and reasonable level of difficulty. This study suggests that questions included in the currently available questionnaires vary widely in difficulty and ability to differentiate knowledge level, which may ultimately compromise reliability and utility of existing examinations. Further examination of individual questions and teaching points included in the current assessments may help to construct increasingly reliable and useful knowledge assessments in the future. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Germany | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 60 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 15% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Librarian | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 21 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 21 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 October 2016.
All research outputs
#6,443,044
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#550
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,229
of 332,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#8
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,555 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.