%0期刊文章%@ 2369-3762 %I JMIR出版物%V 3% 卡塔尔世界杯8强波胆分析N 1 %P e4 %T当教育材料交付时:信息评估方法的混合方法内容验证研究%A Badran,Hani %A Pluye,Pierre %A Grad,Roland %+信息技术初级保健研究小组，麦吉尔大学家庭医学系，3楼5858,chemin de la Côte-des-Neige，蒙特利尔，QC, H3S 1Z1，加拿大，1 514 398 8483,pierre.pluye@mcgill.ca %K有效性和可靠性%K继续教育%K互联网%K电子邮件%K医生，背景:信息评估方法(IAM)允许临床医生报告与通过电子邮件收到的临床信息相关的认知影响、临床相关性、使用意图和预期的患者健康益处。超过15000名加拿大医生和药剂师在继续教育项目中使用IAM。此外，信息提供者可以使用IAM评级和临床医生的反馈意见来改进他们的产品。目的:我们的总体目标是验证教育材料交付的IAM问卷(生态和逻辑内容效度)。我们的具体目标是衡量IAM条目的相关性和评估其代表性，以评估通过电子邮件接收的信息。方法:采用三部分混合方法研究(收敛设计)。在第一部分(定量纵向研究)中，测量IAM项目的相关性。参与者为使用IAM的5596名加拿大医学协会医师会员。 A total of 234,196 ratings were collected in 2012. The relevance of IAM items with respect to their main construct was calculated using descriptive statistics (relevance ratio R). In part 2 (qualitative descriptive study), the representativeness of IAM items was evaluated. A total of 15 family physicians completed semistructured face-to-face interviews. For each construct, we evaluated the representativeness of IAM items using a deductive-inductive thematic qualitative data analysis. In part 3 (mixing quantitative and qualitative parts), results from quantitative and qualitative analyses were reviewed, juxtaposed in a table, discussed with experts, and integrated. Thus, our final results are derived from the views of users (ecological content validation) and experts (logical content validation). Results: Of the 23 IAM items, 21 were validated for content, while 2 were removed. In part 1 (quantitative results), 21 items were deemed relevant, while 2 items were deemed not relevant (R=4.86% [N=234,196] and R=3.04% [n=45,394], respectively). In part 2 (qualitative results), 22 items were deemed representative, while 1 item was not representative. In part 3 (mixing quantitative and qualitative results), the content validity of 21 items was confirmed, and the 2 nonrelevant items were excluded. A fully validated version was generated (IAM-v2014). Conclusions: This study produced a content validated IAM questionnaire that is used by clinicians and information providers to assess the clinical information delivered in continuing education programs. %M 28292738 %R 10.2196/mededu.6415 %U http://mededu.www.mybigtv.com/2017/1/e4/ %U https://doi.org/10.2196/mededu.6415 %U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28292738