Are remote health clinics primary health care focused? Validation of the Primary Health Care Engagement (PHCE) Scale for the Australian remote primary health care setting.

Kylie McCullough, Gemma Doleman, Melissa Dunham, Lisa Whitehead, Davina Porock
{"title":"Are remote health clinics primary health care focused? Validation of the Primary Health Care Engagement (PHCE) Scale for the Australian remote primary health care setting.","authors":"Kylie McCullough, Gemma Doleman, Melissa Dunham, Lisa Whitehead, Davina Porock","doi":"10.1017/S1463423623000592","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To test and validate a measure of primary health care (PHC) engagement in the Australian remote health context.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>PHC principles include quality improvement, community participation and orientation of health care, patient-centred continuity of care, accessibility, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Measuring the alignment of services with the principles of PHC provides a method of evaluating the quality of care in community settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A two-stage design of initial content and face validity evaluation by a panel of experts and then pilot-testing the instrument via survey methods was conducted. Twelve experts from clinical, education, management and research roles within the remote health setting evaluated each item in the original instrument. Panel members evaluated the representativeness and clarity of each item for face and content validity. Qualitative responses were also collected and included suggestions for changes to item wording. The modified tool was pilot-tested with 47 remote area nurses. Internal consistency reliability of the Australian Primary Health Care Engagement scale was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. Construct validity of the Australian scale was evaluated using exploratory factor analysis and principal component analysis.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Modifications to suit the Australian context were made to 8 of the 28 original items. This modified instrument was pilot-tested with 47 complete responses. Overall, the scale showed high internal consistency reliability. The subscale constructs 'Quality improvement', 'Accessibility-availability' and 'population orientation' showed low levels of internal consistency reliability. However, the mean inter-item correlation was 0.31, 0.26 and 0.31, respectively, which are in the recommended range of 0.15 to 0.50 and indicate that the items are correlated and are measuring the same construct. The Australian PHCE scale is recommended as a tool for the evaluation of health services. Further testing on a larger sample may provide clarity over some items which may be open to interpretation.</p>","PeriodicalId":74493,"journal":{"name":"Primary health care research & development","volume":"25 ","pages":"e3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10790365/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary health care research & development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423623000592","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To test and validate a measure of primary health care (PHC) engagement in the Australian remote health context.

Background: PHC principles include quality improvement, community participation and orientation of health care, patient-centred continuity of care, accessibility, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Measuring the alignment of services with the principles of PHC provides a method of evaluating the quality of care in community settings.

Methods: A two-stage design of initial content and face validity evaluation by a panel of experts and then pilot-testing the instrument via survey methods was conducted. Twelve experts from clinical, education, management and research roles within the remote health setting evaluated each item in the original instrument. Panel members evaluated the representativeness and clarity of each item for face and content validity. Qualitative responses were also collected and included suggestions for changes to item wording. The modified tool was pilot-tested with 47 remote area nurses. Internal consistency reliability of the Australian Primary Health Care Engagement scale was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. Construct validity of the Australian scale was evaluated using exploratory factor analysis and principal component analysis.

Findings: Modifications to suit the Australian context were made to 8 of the 28 original items. This modified instrument was pilot-tested with 47 complete responses. Overall, the scale showed high internal consistency reliability. The subscale constructs 'Quality improvement', 'Accessibility-availability' and 'population orientation' showed low levels of internal consistency reliability. However, the mean inter-item correlation was 0.31, 0.26 and 0.31, respectively, which are in the recommended range of 0.15 to 0.50 and indicate that the items are correlated and are measuring the same construct. The Australian PHCE scale is recommended as a tool for the evaluation of health services. Further testing on a larger sample may provide clarity over some items which may be open to interpretation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
偏远地区的医疗诊所是否注重初级医疗保健?针对澳大利亚偏远地区初级卫生保健环境的初级卫生保健参与(PHCE)量表验证。
目的:测试并验证澳大利亚偏远地区初级卫生保健(PHC)参与度的衡量标准:初级卫生保健的原则包括提高质量、社区参与和卫生保健导向、以患者为中心的连续性保健、可及性和跨学科合作。衡量服务是否符合初级保健原则为评估社区医疗质量提供了一种方法:方法:采用两阶段设计,由专家小组进行初步内容和表面有效性评估,然后通过调查方法对工具进行试点测试。来自偏远地区医疗机构临床、教育、管理和研究领域的 12 位专家对原始工具中的每个项目进行了评估。专家组成员对每个项目的代表性和清晰度进行了评估,以确保表面和内容的有效性。此外,还收集了定性反馈,包括对项目措辞的修改建议。修改后的工具在 47 名偏远地区护士中进行了试点测试。使用 Cronbach's alpha 评估了澳大利亚初级卫生保健参与量表的内部一致性可靠性。使用探索性因子分析和主成分分析法评估了澳大利亚量表的结构效度:根据澳大利亚的具体情况,对 28 个原始项目中的 8 个进行了修改。对修改后的量表进行了试点测试,共有 47 份完整的答卷。总体而言,量表显示出较高的内部一致性可靠性。质量改进"、"可及性-可用性 "和 "面向人群 "这三个子量表结构的内部一致性可靠性较低。不过,项目间相关的平均值分别为 0.31、0.26 和 0.31,处于 0.15 至 0.50 的建议范围内,表明项目间存在相关性,测量的是同一建构。建议将澳大利亚 PHCE 量表作为评估医疗服务的工具。对更大样本的进一步测试可能会澄清一些可能存在解释上的问题的项目。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Healthy ageing in long-term care? Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic: a position paper. Early structured communication between general practitioner, sick-listed patient, and employer: Results and lessons learned from a pragmatic trial in the Capacity Note project. The impact of COVID-19 on referrals among general practitioners and specialists in Shanghai, China. The unrevealed links: periodontal health, human milk composition, and infant gut microbiome dynamics. Primary healthcare as a strategy for eliminating hepatitis C: the METRIC toolkit.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1