Table 1.
The items in the questionnaire and content validity based on the responses from ten experts; 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
| Item # | Statement | I-CVI 1 | κ* 2 | Interpretation 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part 1. Demographics | ||||
| 1 | Sex | Not applicable | ||
| 2 | Age | Not applicable | ||
| 3 | Education level | Not applicable | ||
| Part 2a. Awareness of antimicrobial use (5-point Likert scale) | ||||
| 4 | Antimicrobial agents are nationally abused. | 0.8 | 0.79 | Excellent |
| 5 | Antibiotic resistance is a nationwide problem. | 0.7 | 0.66 | Good |
| 6 | Pharmacists properly check the reason to take antimicrobials, their dose and duration of use; monitor their side effects; and provide counseling regarding my antibiotics. | 0.8 | 0.79 | Excellent |
| Part 2b. Knowledge of antimicrobial use (yes/no items) | ||||
| 7 | I believe anti-infectives are properly prescribed to me. | 0.8 | 0.79 | Excellent |
| 8 | I know (knew) the name of my antibiotics. | 0.9 | 0.90 | Excellent |
| 9 | I know (knew) the reason for taking my antibiotics. | 1.0 | 1.00 | Excellent |
| 10 | I know (knew) the dose of my antibiotics. | 0.5 | 0.34 | Poor |
| 11 | I know (knew) the duration of my antimicrobial therapy. | 0.9 | 0.90 | Excellent |
| 12 | I know (knew) the shape or color of my antibiotics. | 0.7 | 0.66 | Good |
| 13 | I know (knew) when to take my antibiotics. | 0.9 | 0.90 | Excellent |
| 14 | I know (knew) the adverse reactions or precautions related to my antibiotics. | 1.0 | 1.00 | Excellent |
| 15 | I know (knew) how to manage the adverse reaction caused by my anti-infectives. | 0.8 | 0.79 | Excellent |
| 16 | I know (knew) the time for the next follow-up visit after discharge from the hospital.4 | 0.5 | 0.34 | Poor |
| Part 3. Patient need for community-based pharmaceutical care services in the outpatient antimicrobial stewardship program (5-point Likert scale) | ||||
| 17 | The abuse of antimicrobials would be reduced by the active involvement of pharmacists in infectious disease management. | 0.8 | 0.79 | Excellent |
| 18 | Antibiotic resistance would be decreased by the active involvement of pharmacists in infectious disease management. | 0.8 | 0.79 | Excellent |
| 19 | Treatment outcomes of infectious diseases would be improved with stronger antimicrobial knowledge of pharmacists. | 0.8 | 0.79 | Excellent |
| 20 | Pharmacists’ knowledge of antibiotics is irrelevant to the effectiveness of infectious disease treatment. | 0.7 | 0.66 | Good |
| 21 | Pharmacists’ intervention helps the physician choose the appropriate antimicrobial therapy. | 0.8 | 0.79 | Excellent |
| 22 | Pharmacists’ intervention prevents excessive antibiotic prescriptions. | 0.7 | 0.66 | Good |
| 23 | Pharmacists’ intervention saves antimicrobial drug costs. | 0.8 | 0.79 | Excellent |
| 24 | Pharmacists need to validate antibiotic prescriptions and monitor resistance status continuously. | 1.0 | 1.00 | Excellent |
| 25 | Treatment outcomes of infectious diseases would be improved by pharmacy education for other healthcare professionals. | 0.9 | 0.90 | Excellent |
| 26 | Consideration of local infection prevalence and resistance patterns would improve antimicrobial treatment outcomes. | 0.8 | 0.79 | Excellent |
| Overall, content validity | S-CVI/Average 5 = 0.8 | |||
1 I-CVI (item content validity index) = the number of experts giving a rating of 3 or 4/the number of experts. 2 κ* = kappa designating agreement on relevance: κ* = (I-CVI ‒ Pc)/(1 − Pc),where ‒ Pc (probability of a chance occurrence) = [N!/A!(N − A)!] × 0.5 N, N = number of experts, and A = number agreeing on good relevance. 3 Interpretation criteria for κ*: poor = κ* < 0.40; fair = κ* of 0.40‒0.59; good = κ* of 0.60‒0.74; excellent = κ* > 0.74. 4 Designed to be answered only by patients, who had been hospitalized previously. 5 S-CVI/Ave (average scale content validity index) = mean of I-CVI.