Claire Z Kalpakjian1, Heidi J Haapala2, Susan D Ernst3, Brittany R Orians4, Melissa L Barber4, Ashley L Wiseman5, Lukonde Mulenga2, Shannen Bolde2, Sara Rosenblum2, Gina M Jay2. 1. University of Michigan Medical School, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Electronic address: clairez@umich.edu. 2. University of Michigan Medical School, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. University of Michigan Medical School, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. Community Member, USA. 5. University of Michigan, College of Literature Science and the Arts, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Community Member, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While the literature on pregnancy and disability is growing, generating important knowledge of barriers to care and health risks, there is limited literature on pregnancy decision-making and informational needs. Such knowledge is critical for the development of interventions to mitigate the challenges women with disabilities and health care providers face in making this important decision. OBJECTIVE: /Hypothesis: Develop a survey of pregnancy decisional and informational needs of women with physical disabilities. METHODS: We developed a conceptual framework that guided item writing, defined the characteristics of the target population, engaged stakeholders with disabilities to collaborate with investigators, and tested the interpretability and relevance of items, and preferred mode of responding (online vs. telephone). A total of 123 women participated in cognitive interviews (N = 13), mode testing (N = 10), or survey data collection (N = 114). RESULTS: Instructions, three screening questions, and 156 items were tested in one round of 17 cognitive interviews; 25 items were deleted, 94 were revised, and 37 items were retained without changes. The final version of the survey included six sub-sections: the experience of making a decision; information about pregnancy and disability; things affecting a decision; knowing what is important; support for making a decision; and working with health care providers. CONCLUSIONS: The overall performance of the survey supported its content validity and utility as a useful way to gather information about the pregnancy decision-making experience and informational needs of women with physical disabilities.
BACKGROUND: While the literature on pregnancy and disability is growing, generating important knowledge of barriers to care and health risks, there is limited literature on pregnancy decision-making and informational needs. Such knowledge is critical for the development of interventions to mitigate the challenges women with disabilities and health care providers face in making this important decision. OBJECTIVE: /Hypothesis: Develop a survey of pregnancy decisional and informational needs of women with physical disabilities. METHODS: We developed a conceptual framework that guided item writing, defined the characteristics of the target population, engaged stakeholders with disabilities to collaborate with investigators, and tested the interpretability and relevance of items, and preferred mode of responding (online vs. telephone). A total of 123 women participated in cognitive interviews (N = 13), mode testing (N = 10), or survey data collection (N = 114). RESULTS: Instructions, three screening questions, and 156 items were tested in one round of 17 cognitive interviews; 25 items were deleted, 94 were revised, and 37 items were retained without changes. The final version of the survey included six sub-sections: the experience of making a decision; information about pregnancy and disability; things affecting a decision; knowing what is important; support for making a decision; and working with health care providers. CONCLUSIONS: The overall performance of the survey supported its content validity and utility as a useful way to gather information about the pregnancy decision-making experience and informational needs of women with physical disabilities.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Linda Long-Bellil; Monika Mitra; Lisa I Iezzoni; Suzanne C Smeltzer; Lauren D Smith Journal: Disabil Health J Date: 2017-04-06 Impact factor: 2.554
Authors: Claire Z Kalpakjian; Jodi M Kreschmer; Mary D Slavin; Pamela A Kisala; Elisabeth H Quint; Nancy D Chiaravalloti; Natalie Jenkins; Tamara Bushnik; Dagmar Amtmann; David S Tulsky; Roxanne Madrid; Rebecca Parten; Michael Evitts; Carolyn L Grawi Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2020-05-19 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Sara J Morgan; Dagmar Amtmann; Daniel C Abrahamson; Andre J Kajlich; Brian J Hafner Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-01-20 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jin-Ah Sim; Geehong Hyun; Todd M Gibson; Yutaka Yasui; Wendy Leisenring; Melissa M Hudson; Leslie L Robison; Gregory T Armstrong; Kevin R Krull; I-Chan Huang Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2020-01