{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,8]],"date-time":"2026-10-08T02:49:18Z","timestamp":1791427758658,"version":"4.3.3"},"reference-count":32,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,13]],"date-time":"2026-07-13T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1783900800000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,8]],"date-time":"2026-10-08T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1791417600000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":87,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"funder":[{"DOI":"10.13039\/100001797","name":"Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Foundation","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","id":[{"id":"10.13039\/100001797","id-type":"DOI","asserted-by":"publisher"}]},{"DOI":"10.13039\/100000738","name":"U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","id":[{"id":"10.13039\/100000738","id-type":"DOI","asserted-by":"publisher"}]}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["J Patient Rep Outcomes"],"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Background<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Currently, there is no validated instrument that assesses a patient\u2019s reported deprescribing experiences and outcomes. This study reports the third phase of refining such an instrument, the Deprescribing Evaluation and Quality Improvement instrument (DEQI), using cognitive interviews. Cognitive interviews have been used in the development of many survey tools; however, there is limited evidence of their use in pharmacy research, particularly in deprescribing studies involving older adults. The aim of this phase of the DEQI instrument development is to evaluate and refine the individual items to enhance their clarity to accurately reflect patient-reported experiences and outcomes after deprescribing interventions.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>A draft DEQI Instrument was tested through two rounds of cognitive interviews conducted four weeks apart, involving 16 Veteran adults aged 65 or older who were on multiple medications. Interviews lasted about 60\u201390\u00a0min. Two cognitive interviewing techniques, \u201cthink-aloud\u201d and \u201cverbal probing,\u201d were used. Data from the interviews were independently analyzed by four coders employing two coding techniques: interaction coding and the cognitive classification scheme (CCS) to identify problematic questions in the DEQI instrument. Based on the analysis of the first round, the items were revised and then administered again in a second round. The improvement in clarity was evaluated.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Participants were mostly male (88%) and non-Hispanic White (69%), with a mean age of 73.4 years (range 64\u201384). About 38% had some college or technical school education. The classification coding scheme identified 102 problematic items in the first round, with approximately 70% related to the comprehension and communication code, and around 14% related to response selection. After modifications and readministration in the second round, the number of identified problems dropped significantly from 102 to 21. Following the revision in the second round, the proportion of \u201cimmediately codable\u201d answers increased significantly (from 0.68 to 0.80), while the proportions of \u201cuncodable\u201d answers and \u201citems requiring clarification\u201d decreased.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>This study demonstrates the use of interaction coding and CCS to refine an effective evaluation instrument to improve deprescribing interventions with an older Veteran population. Through iterative refinement of items based on cognitive interviews, over half of the DEQI instrument\u2019s items were improved, resulting in clearer items and reduced confusion among participants.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Clinical trial number<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Not applicable.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1186\/s41687-026-01145-7","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,13]],"date-time":"2026-07-13T15:06:23Z","timestamp":1783955183000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Applying cognitive interviewing process to refine an instrument for measuring deprescribing experience and outcomes in older veterans"],"prefix":"10.1186","volume":"10","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0001-5008-5995","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Helen","family":"Omuya","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Sura","family":"AlMahasis","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Ejura","family":"Salihu","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Lauren","family":"Welch","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Trisha","family":"Ra\u0148ola","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Justine","family":"Manning","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Shiying","family":"Mai","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Betty","family":"Chewning","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,13]]},"reference":[{"issue":"3","key":"1145_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"87","DOI":"10.1027\/1614-2241\/a000075","volume":"9","author":"H Boeije","year":"2013","unstructured":"Boeije H, Willis G (2013) The Cognitive Interviewing Reporting Framework (CIRF). Methodology 9(3):87\u201395. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1027\/1614-2241\/a000075. 08\/01 2013","journal-title":"Methodology"},{"key":"1145_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Shiyanbola OO, Bolt D, Tarfa A, Brown C, Ward E (2019) A content validity and cognitive interview process to evaluate an Illness Perception Questionnaire for African Americans with type 2 diabetes. BMC Res Notes 12(1). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s13104-019-4342-9","DOI":"10.1186\/s13104-019-4342-9"},{"key":"1145_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Irwin DE, Varni JW, Yeatts K, DeWalt DA (2009) Cognitive interviewing methodology in the development of a pediatric item bank: a patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 7(1):3. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/1477-7525-7-3","DOI":"10.1186\/1477-7525-7-3"},{"key":"1145_CR4","unstructured":"Willis GB (2004) Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. Sage"},{"key":"1145_CR5","unstructured":"Tourangeau R (1984) Cognitive sciences and survey methods. In: Cognitive Aspects of Survey Methodology: Building a Bridge Between Disciplines"},{"key":"1145_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"149","DOI":"10.3389\/fpubh.2018.00149","volume":"6","author":"GO Boateng","year":"2018","unstructured":"Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Qui\u00f1onez HR, Young SL (2018) Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer. Front Public Health 6:149. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/fpubh.2018.00149","journal-title":"Front Public Health"},{"key":"1145_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Scott K, Ummer O, Lefevre AE (2021) The devil is in the detail: reflections on the value and application of cognitive interviewing to strengthen quantitative surveys in global health. Health Policy Plan 36(6):982\u2013995. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/heapol\/czab048","DOI":"10.1093\/heapol\/czab048"},{"key":"1145_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Garc\u00eda AA (2011) Cognitive interviews to test and refine questionnaires. Public Health Nurs 28(5):444\u2013450. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1525-1446.2010.00938.x","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1525-1446.2010.00938.x"},{"issue":"S1","key":"1145_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"359","DOI":"10.1093\/poq\/nfu092","volume":"79","author":"GB Willis","year":"2015","unstructured":"Willis GB (2015) The Practice of Cross-Cultural Cognitive Interviewing. Pub Opin Q 79(S1):359\u2013395. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/poq\/nfu092","journal-title":"Pub Opin Q"},{"issue":"1","key":"1145_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"9","DOI":"10.1186\/s41687-020-00282-x","volume":"14","author":"KI Aronson","year":"2021","unstructured":"Aronson KI, Ali M, Reshetynak E et al (2021) Establishing content-validity of a disease-specific health-related quality of life instrument for patients with chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis. J Patient Rep Outcomes Jan 14(1):9. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s41687-020-00282-x","journal-title":"J Patient Rep Outcomes Jan"},{"key":"1145_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"De Roborel A, Findley A, Bury D, Brady K, Reaney M, Gater A (2024) Development and content validation of the Patient\u2019s Qualitative Assessment of Treatment \u2013 Real-World (PQAT-RW): an instrument to evaluate benefits and disadvantages of treatments in real-world settings. Patient Relat Outcome Meas 15:255\u2013269. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2147\/prom.s468623","DOI":"10.2147\/prom.s468623"},{"key":"1145_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Reeve E, Gnjidic D, Long J, Hilmer S (2015) A systematic review of the emerging definition of \u2018deprescribing\u2019 with network analysis: implications for future research and clinical practice. Br J Clin Pharmacol 80(6):1254\u20131268. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/bcp.12732","DOI":"10.1111\/bcp.12732"},{"issue":"12","key":"1145_CR13","first-page":"564","volume":"36","author":"S Battar","year":"2019","unstructured":"Battar S, Watson Dickerson KR, Sedgwick C, Cmelik T (2019) Understanding Principles of High Reliability Organizations Through the Eyes of VIONE: A Clinical Program to Improve Patient Safety by Deprescribing Potentially Inappropriate Medications and Reducing Polypharmacy. Fed Pract Dec 36(12):564\u2013568","journal-title":"Fed Pract Dec"},{"key":"1145_CR14","unstructured":"Diffusion Marketplace. https:\/\/marketplace.va.gov\/innovations\/vione"},{"key":"1145_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Omuya H, Welch L, Ra\u0148ola TS et al (2024) Enhancing older Veterans\u2019 care: insights from medication reviews and deprescribing interventions. Res Social Adm Pharm. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.sapharm.2024.09.006","DOI":"10.1016\/j.sapharm.2024.09.006"},{"key":"1145_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Presser S, Couper MP, Lessler JT et al Methods for testing and evaluating survey questions. In: Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires, pp 1\u201322","DOI":"10.1002\/0471654728.ch1"},{"issue":"2","key":"1145_CR17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"287","DOI":"10.1093\/poq\/nfm006","volume":"71","author":"PC Beatty","year":"2007","unstructured":"Beatty PC, Willis GB (2007) Research Synthesis: The Practice of Cognitive Interviewing. Pub Opin Q 71(2):287\u2013311. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/poq\/nfm006","journal-title":"Pub Opin Q"},{"issue":"3","key":"1145_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"229","DOI":"10.1023\/A:1023254226592","volume":"12","author":"D Collins","year":"2003","unstructured":"Collins D (2003) Pretesting survey instruments: An overview of cognitive methods. Qual Life Res 12(3):229\u2013238. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1023\/A:1023254226592. \/05\/01 2003","journal-title":"Qual Life Res"},{"key":"1145_CR19","unstructured":"CR A, LJ T, WG B Cognitive interviewing: a \u201chow to\u201d guide. https:\/\/www.hkr.se\/contentassets\/9ed7b1b3997e4bf4baa8d4eceed5cd87\/gordonwillis.pdf\/"},{"key":"1145_CR20","unstructured":"Department of Veterans Affairs US (2026) Who is a Veteran? Webpage. https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/crs-product\/R47299"},{"key":"1145_CR21","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Eibner C, Krull H, Brown KM et al (2015) Current and Projected Characteristics and Unique Health Care Needs of the Patient Population Served by the Department of Veterans Affairs. RAND Corporation","DOI":"10.7249\/rhq-05-04-13"},{"key":"1145_CR22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Coyne KS, Barsdorf AI, Brooks A et al (2021) Establishing the content validity of the Prescription Opioid Misuse and Abuse Questionnaire (POMAQ) among chronic pain patients. Curr Med Res Opin 37(3):505\u2013514. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/03007995.2020.1865891","DOI":"10.1080\/03007995.2020.1865891"},{"key":"1145_CR23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Burden AD, Mrowietz U, Skalicky AM et al (2022) Symptom experience and content validity of the Psoriasis Symptom Scale (PSS) in patients with generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP). Dermatol Ther 12(6):1367\u20131381. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s13555-022-00736-8","DOI":"10.1007\/s13555-022-00736-8"},{"key":"1145_CR24","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Schaeffer NC, Dykema J (2004) A multiple-method approach to improving the clarity of closely related concepts: distinguishing legal and physical custody of children. In: Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires, pp 475\u2013502","DOI":"10.1002\/0471654728.ch23"},{"key":"1145_CR25","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Fowler FJ (2011) Coding the behavior of interviewers and respondents to evaluate survey questions. In: Question Evaluation Methods, pp 5\u201321","DOI":"10.1002\/9781118037003.ch2"},{"key":"1145_CR26","unstructured":"Dykema J, Schaeffer NC (2005) Response errors in child support and paternity questions: procedures and codes for studying interaction between the interviewer and respondent. Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin"},{"key":"1145_CR27","first-page":"419","volume":"22","author":"Y Ongena","year":"2006","unstructured":"Ongena Y, Dijkstra W (2006) Methods of Behavior Coding of Survey Interviews. J official Stat 09\/01 22:419\u2013451","journal-title":"J official Stat 09\/01"},{"issue":"1","key":"1145_CR28","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3","DOI":"10.1177\/1525822x14549921","volume":"28","author":"FJ Fowler","year":"2016","unstructured":"Fowler FJ, Lloyd SJ, Cosenza CA, Wilson IB (2016) Coding Cognitive Interviews:An Approach to Enhancing the Value of Cognitive Testing for Survey Question Evaluation. Field Methods 28(1):3\u201320. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1525822x14549921","journal-title":"Field Methods"},{"key":"1145_CR29","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Forsyth B, Rothgeb JM, Willis GB (2004) Does pretesting make a difference? An experimental test. In: Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires, pp 525\u2013546","DOI":"10.1002\/0471654728.ch25"},{"issue":"1","key":"1145_CR30","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"5","DOI":"10.1177\/075910630709600103","volume":"96","author":"J Rothgeb","year":"2007","unstructured":"Rothgeb J, Willis G, Forsyth B (2007) Questionnaire pretesting methods: Do different techniques and different organizations produce similar results? Bull Sociol Methodology\/Bulletin de M\u00e9thodologie Sociologique 96(1):5\u201331","journal-title":"Bull Sociol Methodology\/Bulletin de M\u00e9thodologie Sociologique"},{"key":"1145_CR31","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Morgan SJ, Amtmann D, Abrahamson DC, Kajlich AJ, Hafner BJ (2014) Use of cognitive interviews in the development of the PLUS-M item bank. Qual Life Res 23(6):1767\u20131775. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11136-013-0618-z","DOI":"10.1007\/s11136-013-0618-z"},{"key":"1145_CR32","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Priede C, Farrall S (2011) Comparing results from different styles of cognitive interviewing: \u2018verbal probing\u2019 vs. \u2018thinking aloud\u2019. Int J Soc Res Methodol 14(4):271\u2013287. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13645579.2010.523187","DOI":"10.1080\/13645579.2010.523187"}],"container-title":["Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1186\/s41687-026-01145-7","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1186\/s41687-026-01145-7.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1186\/s41687-026-01145-7.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,8]],"date-time":"2026-10-08T01:49:47Z","timestamp":1791424187000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1186\/s41687-026-01145-7"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,13]]},"references-count":32,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,12]]}},"alternative-id":["1145"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s41687-026-01145-7","relation":{},"ISSN":["2509-8020"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2509-8020","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,13]]},"assertion":[{"value":"27 November 2025","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"3 July 2026","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"13 July 2026","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"Institution Review Board (IRB) approval for the study was obtained from the VA Research and Development Committee and the University of Wisconsin (UW) Madison IRB board. Both institutions were informed of any change to the protocol. A request for a waiver of documentation of informed consent was approved because no identifiable information was collected. Participants received the IRB-approved participant information sheet that explained the testing process. They were required to read and verbally consent to the study prior to the interview. The information sheet was either handed out during the interview or, for virtual interviews, sent via email or displayed on the screen at the beginning of the meeting, depending on the interview mode (either in-person or virtual). Audio recordings were used to capture the verbal consent agreement. As part of the consent process, the interviewer orally conveyed the purpose of the interview and analysis techniques. This research study was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.","order":1,"name":"Ethics","label":"Ethics approval and consent to participate","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"The authors declare no competing interests.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","label":"Competing interests","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}}],"article-number":"181"}}