Development and Validation of Objective and Subjective Osteoporosis Knowledge Instruments Among Chinese Orthopaedic Surgeons

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Clinicians must be knowledgeable about osteoporosis so that they can convey information regarding the prevention of fragility fractures to their patients. The purposes of this study were to develop objective and subjective knowledge instruments for osteoporosis and fragility fractures and then test their reliability and validity among Chinese orthopaedic surgeons. METHODS: A 2-round procedure was used to develop the objective and subjective knowledge instruments. A cross-sectional online survey was distributed to 293 orthopaedic surgeons; 189 surgeons returned the questionnaires. We examined internal consistency, test-retest reliability, criterion validity, and discriminant validity; we also compared the subjective knowledge level with the objective knowledge level among surgeons. RESULTS: Our results showed that the Subjective Knowledge Scale (SKS) regarding Osteoporosis and Fragility Fractures had a high Cronbach alpha coefficient (0.915), and the objective Osteoporosis Knowledge Test for Clinicians (OKTC) had an adequate Kuder-Richardson 20 coefficient (0.64). Item analyses were conducted, and a short version of the OKTC (the OKTC-SF) was developed. The SKS, the OKTC, and the OKTC-SF all showed good test-retest reliability, criterion validity, and discriminant validity. The percentage of surgeons with a high subjective knowledge level was higher than the percentage of surgeons who selected the correct answer for several corresponding questions related to objective knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: The SKS, the OKTC, and the OKTC-SF all demonstrated good reliability and validity. However, the orthopaedic surgeons may have overestimated their knowledge level regarding osteoporosis. Targeted continuing medical education that is based on individual knowledge level is needed to improve the undertreatment of osteoporosis among patients with fragility fractures.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.