OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability and validity of the ORTHO Birth Control Satisfaction Assessment Tool (ORTHO BC-SAT). DESIGN: 339 women using 1 of 4 hormonal birth control methods (oral contraceptives, transdermal patch, vaginal ring, injections), completed the questionnaire 1-2 times. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The questionnaire was developed based on findings from the literature, focus groups, and interviews. Internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, construct validity, and known groups validity were evaluated. RESULTS: Based on variable clustering, 8 domains were identified (Ease of Use/Convenience, Compliance, Lifestyle Impact, Symptom/Side Effect Bother, Menstrual Impact, Future Fertility Concerns, Assurance/Confidence, Overall Satisfaction). Internal consistency reliability was demonstrated with Cronbach's alpha values ranging from 0.70 to 0.89. All multi-item scales reported acceptable test-retest reliability (0.79-0.87). Construct validity was demonstrated by support of a hypothesized pattern of correlations. Known groups validity was confirmed by examining scale scores of women categorized by levels of symptom bother. As expected, women with the least amount of bother reported higher scores on all satisfaction scales than those with higher bother (p < 0.0001), except on Future Fertility Concerns (p = 0.27). CONCLUSION: Our results support the reliability and validity of the ORTHO BC-SAT. It may be used in future studies to evaluate satisfaction among hormonal contraceptive users.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability and validity of the ORTHO Birth Control Satisfaction Assessment Tool (ORTHO BC-SAT). DESIGN: 339 women using 1 of 4 hormonal birth control methods (oral contraceptives, transdermal patch, vaginal ring, injections), completed the questionnaire 1-2 times. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The questionnaire was developed based on findings from the literature, focus groups, and interviews. Internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, construct validity, and known groups validity were evaluated. RESULTS: Based on variable clustering, 8 domains were identified (Ease of Use/Convenience, Compliance, Lifestyle Impact, Symptom/Side Effect Bother, Menstrual Impact, Future Fertility Concerns, Assurance/Confidence, Overall Satisfaction). Internal consistency reliability was demonstrated with Cronbach's alpha values ranging from 0.70 to 0.89. All multi-item scales reported acceptable test-retest reliability (0.79-0.87). Construct validity was demonstrated by support of a hypothesized pattern of correlations. Known groups validity was confirmed by examining scale scores of women categorized by levels of symptom bother. As expected, women with the least amount of bother reported higher scores on all satisfaction scales than those with higher bother (p < 0.0001), except on Future Fertility Concerns (p = 0.27). CONCLUSION: Our results support the reliability and validity of the ORTHO BC-SAT. It may be used in future studies to evaluate satisfaction among hormonal contraceptive users.
Authors: Neil Aaronson; Jordi Alonso; Audrey Burnam; Kathleen N Lohr; Donald L Patrick; Edward Perrin; Ruth E Stein Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Britta N Torgrimson; Jessica R Meendering; Nicole P Miller; Paul F Kaplan; Christopher T Minson Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Roopan Gill; Gina Ogilvie; Wendy V Norman; Brian Fitzsimmons; Ciana Maher; Regina Renner Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: C W Rothschild; B A Richardson; B L Guthrie; P Kithao; T Omurwa; J Mukabi; L S Callegari; E L Lokken; G John-Stewart; J A Unger; J Kinuthia; A L Drake Journal: BJOG Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 7.331
Authors: Wendy V Norman; Jessica L Chiles; Caroline A Turner; Rollin Brant; Andra Aslan; Janusz Kaczorowski Journal: Trials Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Elizabeth E Tolley; Kate Morrow Guthrie; Seth Zissette; Joseph L Fava; Katherine Gill; Cheryl E Louw; Philip Kotze; Krishnaveni Reddy; Kathleen MacQueen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 3.240