5429 1850 CAI MDS Insulin User Guide FINAL Nov2006[1]
-
Upload
prabhakar-kumar -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
0
Transcript of 5429 1850 CAI MDS Insulin User Guide FINAL Nov2006[1]
-
7/28/2019 5429 1850 CAI MDS Insulin User Guide FINAL Nov2006[1]
1/36
The Confidence in Administering
Insulin and Managing Diet Scale(CAI MDS)
NURSING BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES
EVALUATION USER GUIDE
November 2006
-
7/28/2019 5429 1850 CAI MDS Insulin User Guide FINAL Nov2006[1]
2/36
158 Pearl Street / 158, rue Pearl
Toronto ON M5H 1L3 CANADA
416 599-1925
416 599-1926
School of Nursing /
cole des sciences infirmires
451 Smyth
Ottawa ON K1H 8M5 CANADA
613 562-5800 (8407)
613 562-5658
http://www.nbpru.ca/
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the
authors. Publication does not imply any endorsement of these
views by either of the participating partners of the Nursing Best
Practice Research Unit, which include members of the
University of Ottawa faculty and members of the Registered
Nurses Association of Ontario (RNAO).
-
7/28/2019 5429 1850 CAI MDS Insulin User Guide FINAL Nov2006[1]
3/36
Nursing Best Practice Guidelines Evaluation User Guide
Copyright 2006 by the NBPRU
Printed in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
All rights reserved. Reproduction, in whole or in part, of this document
without the acknowledgement of the authors and copyright holder is
prohibited.
The recommended citation is:
Davies B, Danseco E, Ray K, Zarins B, Skelly J, Santos J, EdwardsN, Brez S & Lybanon V. (2006). Nursing Best Practice GuidelinesEvaluation User Guide: The Confidence in Administering Insulin andManaging Diet Scale (CAI-MDS). Nursing Best Practice ResearchUnit, University of Ottawa, Canada. pp. 1-29.
-
7/28/2019 5429 1850 CAI MDS Insulin User Guide FINAL Nov2006[1]
4/36
Nursing Best Practice Guidelines Evaluation User Guide
Acknowledgements
This user guide was based on an evaluation project awarded to
Barbara Davies and Nancy Edwards with the Registered Nurses
Association of Ontario (RNAO) and funded by the Government of
Ontario. The authors are grateful for the support of the Nursing
Secretariat of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
(MOHLTC), in particular the Chief Nursing Officer, Sue Matthews.
The authors would also like to acknowledge the contributions ofTazim Virani and RNAO staff, clinical sites that pilot-tested the
evaluation tool, members of the evaluation team and project staff.
The comments of several persons who reviewed earlier drafts of
this user guide are also appreciated: Kim Dalla Bona, Chris
Silvestre and Colleen Turner.
CollaboratorsLucie Brosseau, PhD, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Ottawa
Denyse Pharand, RN, PhD, School of Nursing, University of OttawaAriella Lang, RN, PhD, Canadian Institut es of Health Research Postdoctoral Fellow,
School of Nursing, University of OttawaJenny Ploeg, RN, PhD, School of Nursing, McMaster University
Evaluation Project StaffValerie C. Cronin, RN, MAAlexis DmitrukAndrea Perrier, RN, MBA
Elana Ptack, RN, BACathy Zhang
-
7/28/2019 5429 1850 CAI MDS Insulin User Guide FINAL Nov2006[1]
5/36
The Confidence in AdministeringInsulin and Managing Diet Scale
(CAI-MDS)
Barbara Davies, RN, PhDUniversity of Ottawa, School of Nursing
Evangeline Danseco, PhD
University of Ottawa, School of Nursing
Karen Ray, RN, MScSaint Elizabeth Health Care
Baiba Zarins, RN, CNCC(C), MHSUniversity Health Network
Jennifer Skelly, RN, PhDSchool of Nursing, McMaster University
Josephine Santos, RN, MScOntario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care
Nancy Edwards, RN, PhDSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences &Department of Epidemiology and Community MedicineUniversity of Ottawa
Sharon Brez, RN, MA(Ed), CDEThe Ottawa Hospital
Vanessa Lybanon, MAUniversity of Ottawa Institute of Mental Health Research
Nursing Best Practice Guidelines Evaluation User Guide
-
7/28/2019 5429 1850 CAI MDS Insulin User Guide FINAL Nov2006[1]
6/36
Chapter 1 Purpose of Document
Chapter 1 Development of the Confidence in Administering
Insulin and Managing Diet Scale ...........................................1
Background .................................................... .......................................... 1
The RNAO Best Practice Guidelines on Subcutaneous Administration of
Insulin in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes ................................................... .....2
Approach to scale development ...... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ..... 3
Chapter 2 Administration, Scoring and Interpreting the CAI-
MDS .....................................................................................5
Description of the Confidence in Administering Insulin and Managing Diet
Scale (CAI-MDS) ..................................................... ................................. 6
Administration ... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ............ ......... ... 7
Scoring and Interpretation................................................. ........................ 7
Chapter 3 Overview of the Psychometric Properties of the
CAI-MDS .............................................................................8
Summary ............................................................................11
References ..........................................................................12
Appendices .........................................................................13
Appendix A: The Confidence in Administering Insulin and Managing Diet
Scale (CAI MDS)......................... ........................................................ ... 14
Appendix B: How to Collect Data in Healthcare Settings ...... ............ ......... . 17
Appendix C: SPSS Data Entry Guidelines ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ... 23
Appendix D: Sample Variable Lists and SPSS Scoring Program ...... ......... . 24
Appendix E: Resources ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ... 26
Appendix F: Quick Reference Guide ...... ............ ......... ......... ......... ......... .. 27
Table of Contents
-
7/28/2019 5429 1850 CAI MDS Insulin User Guide FINAL Nov2006[1]
7/36
THE CONFIDENCE IN AD MINISTERING INSULIN AND MANAGING DIET SCALE (CAI-MDS)
NOVEMBER 20061
BACKGROUND
Clinical or best practice guidelines (BPGs)
summarize the most up-to-date research onvarious clinical topics. They contain
recommendations that are useful in helping
healthcare providers practice evidence-informed
care and improve patients health outcomes. The
Registered Nurses Association of Ontario
(RNAO), with funding from the Ontario
Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care has
developed 30 BPGs to date. Each BPG includesevidence-based practice, education, and
organization/policy recommendations. Details
about the RNAO Best Practice Guideline
Program may be obtained on the RNAO
website: www.rnao.org
Chapter highlights
Why evaluation tools forBest Practice Guidelines
are necessary
Process used fordeveloping the
Confidence in
Administering Insulin and
Managing Diet Scale
(CAI-MDS)
The Nursing Best Practice Research Unit (NBPRU) was formed in January 2005 as a
partnership between the University of Ottawa, School of Nursing and the Registered
Nurses Association of Ontario (RNAO). One of the research units objectives is to
develop and pilot test tools useful in the evaluation of the implementation of clinical
nursing BPGs.
Development of the Confidence in
Administering Insulin and Managing Diet
Scale CAI-MDS1
-
7/28/2019 5429 1850 CAI MDS Insulin User Guide FINAL Nov2006[1]
8/36
THE CONFIDENCE IN AD MINISTERING INSULIN AND MANAGING DIET SCALE (CAI-MDS)
NOVEMBER 20062
When BPG recommendations are implemented
in a healthcare organization, the evaluation of its
impact needs to be linked with changes in
nursing practice and improvements in patient
outcomes. The measures used to evaluate the
BPG implementation need to be valid andreliable so that conclusions about the
relationships between the implementation and
the outcomes can be established. These
measures also need to be feasible, acceptable,
and meaningful to healthcare providers and
patients. Sound measures are crucial for
effective decision-making on the
implementation and evaluation of evidence-
informed care.
The Nursing Best Practice Research Unit
(NBPRU) was formed in January 2005 as a
partnership between the University of Ottawa,
School of Nursing and the Registered Nurses
Association of Ontario (RNAO). One of the
research units objectives is to develop and pilot
test tools useful in the evaluation of the
implementation of clinical nursing BPGs. At a
symposium held in the spring of 2005, a team of
leading researchers, administrators, governmentfunders, and policy researchers identified a gap
in the availability of tools for measuring the
outcomes of guideline implementation. Hence,
the NBPRU has developed evaluation tools to
accompany various BPGs. The psychometric
properties of these evaluation tools were
examined in several studies.
This user guide describes the development
and psychometric properties of an evaluationtool that was developed by the NBPRU for the
evaluation of patient outcomes when
implementing recommendations on the RNAO
BPG on Subcutaneous Administration of Insulin
in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes (RNAO, 2004).
It is intended for users who have experience
and/or graduate training in research and
evaluation.
The evaluation tool in this user guide is called
the Confidence in Administering Insulin and
Managing Diet Scale (CAI-MDS). A briefdescription of its development is presented, as
well as how to administer, score and interpret
the scale. Its psychometric properties are also
summarized. Further technical information on
the study examining its psychometric properties
is reported in a forthcoming paper (Danseco,
Davies, Edwards, Skelly , Santos & Lybanon
2006).
THE RNAO BEST PRACTICE
GUIDELINES ON SUBCUTANEOUSADMINISTRATION OF INSULIN IN
ADULTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES
The RNAO BPG on Subcutaneous
Administration of Insulin in Adults with Type 2
Diabetes addresses critical knowledge and skills
that nurses who are not specialists in diabetes
care need when dealing with patients with Type
-
7/28/2019 5429 1850 CAI MDS Insulin User Guide FINAL Nov2006[1]
9/36
THE CONFIDENCE IN AD MINISTERING INSULIN AND MANAGING DIET SCALE (CAI-MDS)
NOVEMBER 20063
2 diabetes who require subcutaneous insulin.
The recommendations consist of information
that registered nurses (RNs) and registered
practical nurses (RPNs) in various practice
settings can apply to assist patients in self-care.
These self-care components include assessmentof psychosocial factors such as self-efficacy,
stressors and beliefs about insulin initiation, and
tailoring initialand follow-up patient education
on topics such as hypoglycemia and blood
glucose monitoring.
Key patient outcomes associated with the
implementation of this guideline include
improved quality of life, demonstration of safe
insulin administration, satisfaction withtreatment and diabetes education, and self-
efficacy relating to diabetes self-care. The panel
development team that worked on this BPG
included experts on diabetes care, and
stakeholders that reviewed the BPG included
practitioners in medicine, pharmacy, social work
and nutrition.
APPROACH TO SCALE
DEVELOPMENT
The development of the evaluation measure for
the BPG on the subcutaneous administration of
insulin followed a collaborative process
involving representatives from the guideline
development panel, implementation sites, and
the guideline evaluation team (see Figure 1).
This collaborative team identified priority
recommendations of the BPG, selected an area
for developing an evaluation measure, and
reviewed relevant tools identified during aliterature review. We called this team the
Diabetes DREAM Team (Developing,
Reviewing, Evaluating and Analyzing
Measures).
Steering Committee
CostCommittee
PsychometricsCommittee
BPG PanelRepresentative
BPG Evaluation
TeamInvestigator
Site
Representative
RNAORepresentative
Figure 1. Evaluation Team Structure.
*DREAM: Developing, Reviewing, Evaluating and Assessing Measures
-
7/28/2019 5429 1850 CAI MDS Insulin User Guide FINAL Nov2006[1]
10/36
THE CONFIDENCE IN AD MINISTERING INSULIN AND MANAGING DIET SCALE (CAI-MDS)
NOVEMBER 20064
The priority recommendations we identified as
well as clinical expert advice led to the selection
of self-efficacy as an outcome of implementing
this BPG. We then conducted a review of the
literature for existing measures on self-efficacyand other similar patient outcome measures that
were relevant to diabetes self-management.
From our review of the literature, we found 35
instruments measuring different aspects of
diabetes self-management. We selected one
scale, the Insulin Management Diabetes Self-
Efficacy Scale (IMDSES) developed by Hurley
(1990) for extensive review. The IMDSES scale
measures patients beliefs in several areas wherethese beliefs could help or hinder self-
management activities.
During our review and discussion, we observed
that the response format used (i.e., Likert scale
from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree)
did not follow Banduras (1994, 1997)
recommended format for measuring self-
efficacy. Albert Bandura developed the concept
of self-efficacy (1977), and many researchers
have found the role of self-efficacy as key in theresults of many health programs.
We also noted that problems are often
encountered by persons completing the
negatively-worded items in the IMDSES. For
example, disagreeing with the statement, Im
not sure I can recognize when my blood sugar is
low implies that one can recognize when blood
sugar is low. However, some persons check off
that they agree with the statement rather than
disagree. This is a common problem with
negatively worded items (DeVellis, 2003).
We developed the CAI-MDS by constructing
items similar to those in the IMDSES (Hurley,
1990) and the Self-Efficacy for Diabetes scale
(Stanford Patient Education Centre). We focused
only on patients beliefs in two major areas:
insulin administration and management (12
items) and diet management (9 items). The
subscale on insulin administration and
management included various situations orcontexts where a persons self-efficacy on
insulin management can vary.
While the RNAO BPG on insulin administration
does not focus on teaching patients about diet
management, items on diet management were
included because being able to manage diet has
been shown to have an impact on blood glucose
levels (Franz, et al., 2002). Self-efficacy with
following dietary recommendations may play arole in overall diabetes self-management.
The CAI-MDS uses a 5-point Likert rating scale
ranging from 1 (not at all confident) to 5
(extremely confident) as endpoints. A
response format using a disagree to agree
format would not follow the recommended
format for measuring self-efficacy based on
Banduras framework and other more widely
used self-efficacy scales (Crawford et al., 2004;DiClemente, Carbonari, Montgomery & Hughes,
1994; Velicer, DiClemente, Rossi & Prochaska,
1990).
Initial drafts of the CAI-MDS were reviewed by
a panel of experts, which included nurses with
expertise in diabetes care and psychologists with
expertise in measurement and in self-efficacy.
Their feedback and suggestions were integrated
in the field-test version. One of the suggestionsincluded using an Arial font, size 14 to assist in
readability, considering the potential vision
problems that may occur for people with
diabetes.
-
7/28/2019 5429 1850 CAI MDS Insulin User Guide FINAL Nov2006[1]
11/36
THE CONFIDENCE IN AD MINISTERING INSULIN AND MANAGING DIET SCALE (CAI-MDS)
NOVEMBER 20065
The CAI-MDS was pilot-tested in two
healthcare organizations located in Ontario from
July to December 2004. The sites included a
large metropolitan university-affiliated hospital
and a community care agency. A total of 45
participants took part in this study. A more
detailed description of the sample and
procedures is presented in Danseco et al. (2006).
-
7/28/2019 5429 1850 CAI MDS Insulin User Guide FINAL Nov2006[1]
12/36
THE CONFIDENCE IN AD MINISTERING INSULIN AND MANAGING DIET SCALE (CAI-MDS)
NOVEMBER 20066
DESCRIPTION OF THE CONFIDENCEIN ADMINISTERING INSULIN AND
MANAGING DIET SCALE (CAI-MDS)
The current user guide presents the Confidence
in Administration of Insulin and Managing
Diet (CAI-MDS, see Appendix A) a self-
efficacy scale relating to insulin self-
administration, monitoring of blood glucose
levels and managing ones diet. The CAI-MDS
can be used by nurses who are providing
diabetes care and wish to evaluate the
effectiveness of diabetes-related education, as aresult of implementing the RNAO BPG on
subcutaneous administration of insulin. The
CAI-MDS can also be used to monitor
improvements in self-efficacy over time, for
example to see if clients self-efficacy is related
to changes in nursing practice as nurses fully
implement recommendations in the BPG on
insulin administration.
It is preferable that the CAI-MDS beadministered two to four weeks after patient
education, when patients or clients have had
some degree of familiarity with self-
administration of insulin.
The CAI-MDS can also be adapted for use by
managers within various healthcare
organizations interested in using the tool in
quality improvement programs, where the
benefits of educational activities need to be
measured. Graduate students and others may
also wish to adapt the CAI-MDS patient self-
report scale for their own diabetes self-efficacy
related research.
The CAI-MDS was designed to assess self-efficacy, which is the perception of ones
ability to perform diabetesrelated self-care
activities (van der Ven et al., 2003) like
preparing and administering insulin , as well as
how well a person manages ones diet. There are
two subscales: the Insulin Administration and
Glucose Monitoring subscale with 12 items, and
the Diet Management subscale with 9 items.
Each item describes a situation or context whereself-efficacy with self-administration of insulin
or diet management can vary. For example, one
question asks about a persons level of
confidence in completing activities related to
their insulin treatment and management (How
confident do you feel with doing these activities
related to your insulin treatment?). Another
Chapter highlights
In this section, we describe:
The two subscales of the CAI-MDS;How to use the CAI-MDS; and
How to score and interpret the tool.
Administration, Scoring and
Interpretation of the CAI-MDS2
-
7/28/2019 5429 1850 CAI MDS Insulin User Guide FINAL Nov2006[1]
13/36
THE CONFIDENCE IN ADMINISTERING INSULIN AND MANAGING DIET SCALE (CAI-MDS)
NOVEMBER 20067
question asks about the level of confidence in
practising activities related to managing diet and
corresponding blood glucose control (How
confident do you feel doing these activities
based on the dietary advice given by a health
professional for your diabetes?).
ADMINISTRATION
Patients or clients are provided with the self-
report questionnaire and are asked to circle the
response that most closely indicates their level
of confidence when doing a certain task or
activity. In some cases, it may not be possible to
have patients/ clients complete the questionnaire
immediately. This may be the case for patientsin a rural setting or in a home care agency. In
these situations, patients/ clients may complete
the questionnaire in their homes and return it by
mail preferably in a pre-paid, pre-addressed
envelope (provided by researcher or healthcare
provider).
The questionnaire may also be completed by
telephone or in person, with the interviewer/
researcher reading out the statements andresponse options, and the patient or client orally
providing the answers. It is a good idea to keep
in mind that patients or clients may tend to give
socially desirable answers when the
questionnaire is given in an interview format.
One advantage of the interview format is that the
provider can ask for the client to clarify their
responses to an item and gain more insights into
the client or patients self-efficacy.
In some situations where patients or clients may
not be familiar with reading English, it is
preferable that an interpreter be available. In this
case, it is important to note that there may be
cultural factors to consider. Self-efficacy may
not be a culturally important construct in other
cultures.
This questionnaire has not been tested in
languages other than English, or in various
ethnic groups. We have also not examineddifferences in responses when the questionnaire
is given in an interview format, a self-
administered format.
Appendix B provides some suggestions on how
to use the CAI-MDS or other evaluation
measures when conducting research in a
healthcare organization.
SCORING AND INTERPRETATION
Respondents are asked to indicate their level of
confidence in being able to perform or complete
the behaviour/task on a five-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (not at all confident) and 5
(extremely confident). A total score is
obtained by summing across all items.
The two separate subscale scores are obtained bysumming across each subscales corresponding
items (e.g. summing across the 12 items for the
Administration and Glucose Monitoring
subscale, and summing across the 9 items for the
Diet Management subscale). In general, higher
scores indicate that a person feels very confident
in their ability to perform the specific task.
Appendix C provides some guidelines for
entering data using SPSS, and Appendix Dillustrates sample programs for scoring the CAI-
MDS.
-
7/28/2019 5429 1850 CAI MDS Insulin User Guide FINAL Nov2006[1]
14/36
THE CONFIDENCE IN ADMINISTERING INSULIN AND MANAGING DIET SCALE (CAI-MDS)
NOVEMBER 20068
Table 1 summarizes the psychometric properties assessed and the procedures used to evaluate them.
Table 1. Statistical Procedures Used to Evaluate Psychometric Properties of the Chart Audit Tool.
Psychometric
Property
Statistical Procedure Used
Feasibility Response rates, changes to the data collection period
Acceptability Examined the percentage of missing data for each item
Reliability Calculated Cronbachs alpha for each subscale to assess internal
consistency
Content Validity Comments and suggestions from expert reviewers
Convergent Validity Examined the correlations of the CAI-MDS with a diabetes attitude
scale and a diabetes self-care scale.
Feasibility (whether a measure can actually be
used in a particular setting given the resources,
demands of testing and complexity of
administration) was low due to the low response
rates. Of 112 eligible participants, only 45 or
40% took part in the study. The team recruited
participants for 14 weeks during the summer of
2004. It was noted that it is harder to get people
to participate in studies during the summer. It
was also difficult to recruit patients once they
were discharged from the hospital.
Acceptability (whether a measure and its items
are acceptable to end-users) appears to be good.
Twenty-nine questionnaires or 71% had no
missing data. Only one item (monitoring my
blood sugar more often when I have a bad cold
or flu) from the Insulin Administration subscale
Overview of Psychometric
Properties of the CAI-MDS3Chapter highlights
In this chapter, we briefly report on the psychometric properties of the Confidence in Administering
Insulin and Managing Diet Scale. The properties described include:
Feasibility
Acceptability
Reliability
Content and Convergent validity.
-
7/28/2019 5429 1850 CAI MDS Insulin User Guide FINAL Nov2006[1]
15/36
THE CONFIDENCE IN ADMINISTERING INSULIN AND MANAGING DIET SCALE (CAI-MDS)
NOVEMBER 20069
had missing responses (n = 7). For the item
Knowing what to do if my blood sugar is high
five participants indicated that they couldnt
answer the questions because they didnt feel
they had enough experience with the diabetes
self-management routines, since they had onlyrecently begun their insulin treatment program.
Reliability (internal consistency; whether the
items of a scale hold together and measure
the construct) was assessed with a statistic called
the Cronbachs alpha. This index ranges from 0
to 1.0, with the higher numbers reflecting higher
reliability. In general, a Cronbach's alpha of at
least .70 is considered adequate.
The Cronbachs alpha for the two CAI-MDS
subscales were high, with a = .90 for the Insulin
Administration and Glucose Monitoring
subscale, a = .94 for the Diet subscale. These
results show that the subscales have very good
reliability.
Content validity (whether a measures scales
or dimensions captures constructs in a
comprehensive manner) was assessed by sevenclinician experts on diabetes care, self-efficacy,
and change behaviour measurement.
Feedback from the reviewers on such issues as
clarity of wording, instructions, readability
(including size and quality of fonts for ease of
reading), and comprehensiveness of topics
covered, consistency with self-efficacy theories,
and the appropriateness of items with the
proscribed subscales was incorporated into thecurrent version of the CAI-MDS.
Convergent validity (correlations with related
measures or constructs) was assessed by
calculating Pearson correlation coefficients
between the CAI-MDS total and two subscale
scores and the Diabetes Attitude Scale (DAS-3,
Anderson, Fitzgerald, Funnell & Gruppen 1998)
and the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care
Activities-Revised (SCSCA-R, Toobert,
Hampson & Glasgow, 2000).
Correlations range from -1.00 to 1.00. A positive
value means a positive relationship between two
variables, and a negative correlation coefficient
means a negative relationship between the two
variables. The magnitude of the correlation
(the closer to +1.00 or to -1.00) shows how
strong the relationship is. For a positive
relationship, a correlation that is less than .40 is
generally considered low, those between .40 and
.60 is moderate, and those above .60 shows ahigh correlation.
Significant moderate to high correlations were
found between the Insulin Administration and
Glucose Monitoring subscale and the DAS-3
seriousness of Type 2 Diabetes subscale (r =
.41, n =29p < .05) and the Value of tight control
subscale (r = .38, n = 32,p < .05). This means
that the more confident (self-efficacious)
patients felt about their ability to administerinsulin and monitor their blood glucose levels,
the more likely they are to believe in the
seriousness of their disease and the value of
having tight glucose control.
The Diet subscale was also significantly
correlated with the DAS-3 Value of Tight
Control subscale (r = .41, n = 30,p < .05). This
suggests that patients who felt more confident in
their ability to control their diets were also morelikely to value tight blood glucose control.
Finally, a significant correlation was found
between the Diet subscale and the DAS-3
Patient Autonomy subscale (r = .43, n = 32,p