Developing and evaluating a Disaster Management Assessment Tool for Health Care Practitioners.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE BMC Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2025-03-06 DOI:10.1186/s12873-025-01199-8
Sara Elshami, Mohamed Izham Mohamed Ibrahim, Manar E Abdel-Rahman, Hanan Abdul Rahim, Banan Mukhalalati
{"title":"Developing and evaluating a Disaster Management Assessment Tool for Health Care Practitioners.","authors":"Sara Elshami, Mohamed Izham Mohamed Ibrahim, Manar E Abdel-Rahman, Hanan Abdul Rahim, Banan Mukhalalati","doi":"10.1186/s12873-025-01199-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Over the last fifty years, the frequency and intensity of disasters have escalated, highlighting the importance of healthcare practitioners (HCPs) being thoroughly prepared for disaster management. Despite this pressing need, there is a notable lack of well-developed and rigorously evaluated assessment tools to evaluate disaster preparedness among HCPs across various disciplines and disaster scenarios. This study aims to develop and evaluate a Disaster Management Assessment Tool for Health Care Practitioners (DMAT_HCP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The DMAT_HCP was designed following the four stages of the Disaster Management Framework and a literature review of similar previously validated tools. Content validity was assessed through two rounds of review by nine and six experts, whereas face validity was assessed by 11 HCPs. DMAT_HCP was tested on 107 HCPs from different health disciplines and settings to evaluate the structural (factor analysis) and construct (convergent and divergent) validities as well as internal consistency reliability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>DMAT_HCP comprised five Likert scales that assess the preparedness and readiness of HCPs for disaster, with satisfactory content validity indices (CVI > 0.83 for six experts). Factor analysis of the entire set of DMAT_HCP items suggested six factors: knowledge, two sub-domains of attitude, practice, willingness to practice, and organization-based management, which together accounted for 77.9% of the variance in the data. Convergent and divergent validity analyses showed that all items within a section had a correlation coefficient greater than 0.4 with their corresponding section score, and they were more strongly correlated with their own section than with scores from other sections. Cronbach's alpha values for the individual sections ranged from 0.89 (attitude) to 0.97 (organization-based management), and the overall Cronbach's alpha for the DMAT_HCP was 0.90.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study substantiated that DMAT_HCP is both conceptually and methodologically valid and reliable. It has demonstrated strong content validity, accurately measures the intended constructs, and effectively distinguishes between unrelated constructs. The tool also exhibited excellent internal consistency reliability across its components. The tool offers a comprehensive, globally applicable assessment of disaster management, suitable for use across various healthcare professions, settings, disaster contexts, and management phases.</p>","PeriodicalId":9002,"journal":{"name":"BMC Emergency Medicine","volume":"25 1","pages":"41"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-025-01199-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Over the last fifty years, the frequency and intensity of disasters have escalated, highlighting the importance of healthcare practitioners (HCPs) being thoroughly prepared for disaster management. Despite this pressing need, there is a notable lack of well-developed and rigorously evaluated assessment tools to evaluate disaster preparedness among HCPs across various disciplines and disaster scenarios. This study aims to develop and evaluate a Disaster Management Assessment Tool for Health Care Practitioners (DMAT_HCP).

Methods: The DMAT_HCP was designed following the four stages of the Disaster Management Framework and a literature review of similar previously validated tools. Content validity was assessed through two rounds of review by nine and six experts, whereas face validity was assessed by 11 HCPs. DMAT_HCP was tested on 107 HCPs from different health disciplines and settings to evaluate the structural (factor analysis) and construct (convergent and divergent) validities as well as internal consistency reliability.

Results: DMAT_HCP comprised five Likert scales that assess the preparedness and readiness of HCPs for disaster, with satisfactory content validity indices (CVI > 0.83 for six experts). Factor analysis of the entire set of DMAT_HCP items suggested six factors: knowledge, two sub-domains of attitude, practice, willingness to practice, and organization-based management, which together accounted for 77.9% of the variance in the data. Convergent and divergent validity analyses showed that all items within a section had a correlation coefficient greater than 0.4 with their corresponding section score, and they were more strongly correlated with their own section than with scores from other sections. Cronbach's alpha values for the individual sections ranged from 0.89 (attitude) to 0.97 (organization-based management), and the overall Cronbach's alpha for the DMAT_HCP was 0.90.

Conclusions: This study substantiated that DMAT_HCP is both conceptually and methodologically valid and reliable. It has demonstrated strong content validity, accurately measures the intended constructs, and effectively distinguishes between unrelated constructs. The tool also exhibited excellent internal consistency reliability across its components. The tool offers a comprehensive, globally applicable assessment of disaster management, suitable for use across various healthcare professions, settings, disaster contexts, and management phases.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Emergency Medicine
BMC Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
8.00%
发文量
178
审稿时长
29 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Emergency Medicine is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all urgent and emergency aspects of medicine, in both practice and basic research. In addition, the journal covers aspects of disaster medicine and medicine in special locations, such as conflict areas and military medicine, together with articles concerning healthcare services in the emergency departments.
期刊最新文献
Developing and evaluating a Disaster Management Assessment Tool for Health Care Practitioners. The triage performance of emergency medical dispatch prioritisation compared to prehospital on-scene triage in the Western Cape Province of South Africa. Trends in analgesia in prehospital trauma care: an analysis of 105.908 patients from the multicenter database TraumaRegister DGU®. Impact of the South Korean government's medical school expansion announcement on pediatric emergency department visits. Trauma hospital preparedness against natural and man-made disasters: a cross-sectional study.
×
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