检查医院备灾工具的组成部分和有效性

IF 2.6 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Nimali Lakmini Munasinghe, Gerard O'Reilly, Peter Cameron
{"title":"检查医院备灾工具的组成部分和有效性","authors":"Nimali Lakmini Munasinghe,&nbsp;Gerard O'Reilly,&nbsp;Peter Cameron","doi":"10.1016/j.pdisas.2023.100305","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>There are numerous gaps in hospital-disaster-preparedness in developing countries. Presently, there are no widely accepted tools to assess preparedness in Sri Lankan hospitals. As a first step towards developing a comprehensive tool for local hospitals, a thorough understanding of the existing tools is required. The purpose of this study was to examine the content and the validity and reliability of the tools used for hospital preparedness studies worldwide. A systematic review was conducted on three databases. The chosen study instruments were compared to the WHO's Hospital Emergency Response Checklist to identify the common components. The validity and reliability of those study instruments were also analysed. Out of the 53 selected studies, 26 did not reported either validity or the reliability. The majority of the tools had prioritized human resources and logistics management. Face validation was the frequently used validation method, and internal consistency was the frequently used reliability measure. However, the most hospital preparedness assessments had been conducted without using a reliable instrument. Crucial preparedness aspects were also neglected in majority of the tools. Different methods for assuring the validity and reliability were discovered. Findings of this study will guide future efforts in formulating a comprehensive hospital readiness tool.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":52341,"journal":{"name":"Progress in Disaster Science","volume":"20 ","pages":"Article 100305"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590061723000327/pdfft?md5=69979d9d771ed2fc1e513ee5ef7c07f4&pid=1-s2.0-S2590061723000327-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining the components and validity of hospital disaster preparedness tools\",\"authors\":\"Nimali Lakmini Munasinghe,&nbsp;Gerard O'Reilly,&nbsp;Peter Cameron\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.pdisas.2023.100305\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>There are numerous gaps in hospital-disaster-preparedness in developing countries. Presently, there are no widely accepted tools to assess preparedness in Sri Lankan hospitals. As a first step towards developing a comprehensive tool for local hospitals, a thorough understanding of the existing tools is required. The purpose of this study was to examine the content and the validity and reliability of the tools used for hospital preparedness studies worldwide. A systematic review was conducted on three databases. The chosen study instruments were compared to the WHO's Hospital Emergency Response Checklist to identify the common components. The validity and reliability of those study instruments were also analysed. Out of the 53 selected studies, 26 did not reported either validity or the reliability. The majority of the tools had prioritized human resources and logistics management. Face validation was the frequently used validation method, and internal consistency was the frequently used reliability measure. However, the most hospital preparedness assessments had been conducted without using a reliable instrument. Crucial preparedness aspects were also neglected in majority of the tools. Different methods for assuring the validity and reliability were discovered. Findings of this study will guide future efforts in formulating a comprehensive hospital readiness tool.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52341,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Progress in Disaster Science\",\"volume\":\"20 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100305\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590061723000327/pdfft?md5=69979d9d771ed2fc1e513ee5ef7c07f4&pid=1-s2.0-S2590061723000327-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Progress in Disaster Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590061723000327\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in Disaster Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590061723000327","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

发展中国家在医院备灾方面存在诸多不足。目前,还没有被广泛接受的工具来评估斯里兰卡医院的备灾情况。作为为当地医院开发综合工具的第一步,需要对现有工具进行全面了解。本研究的目的是检查全球医院准备状态研究工具的内容、有效性和可靠性。我们对三个数据库进行了系统性审查。将所选的研究工具与世界卫生组织的医院应急反应核对表进行比较,以确定共同的组成部分。同时还分析了这些研究工具的有效性和可靠性。在所选的 53 项研究中,有 26 项既未报告有效性,也未报告可靠性。大多数工具都优先考虑了人力资源和后勤管理。表面验证是常用的验证方法,内部一致性是常用的可靠性测量方法。然而,大多数医院准备情况评估都是在没有使用可靠工具的情况下进行的。大多数工具也忽略了关键的准备工作方面。研究发现了确保有效性和可靠性的不同方法。本研究的结果将指导今后制定医院准备就绪综合工具的工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Examining the components and validity of hospital disaster preparedness tools

There are numerous gaps in hospital-disaster-preparedness in developing countries. Presently, there are no widely accepted tools to assess preparedness in Sri Lankan hospitals. As a first step towards developing a comprehensive tool for local hospitals, a thorough understanding of the existing tools is required. The purpose of this study was to examine the content and the validity and reliability of the tools used for hospital preparedness studies worldwide. A systematic review was conducted on three databases. The chosen study instruments were compared to the WHO's Hospital Emergency Response Checklist to identify the common components. The validity and reliability of those study instruments were also analysed. Out of the 53 selected studies, 26 did not reported either validity or the reliability. The majority of the tools had prioritized human resources and logistics management. Face validation was the frequently used validation method, and internal consistency was the frequently used reliability measure. However, the most hospital preparedness assessments had been conducted without using a reliable instrument. Crucial preparedness aspects were also neglected in majority of the tools. Different methods for assuring the validity and reliability were discovered. Findings of this study will guide future efforts in formulating a comprehensive hospital readiness tool.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Progress in Disaster Science
Progress in Disaster Science Social Sciences-Safety Research
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
3.20%
发文量
51
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Progress in Disaster Science is a Gold Open Access journal focusing on integrating research and policy in disaster research, and publishes original research papers and invited viewpoint articles on disaster risk reduction; response; emergency management and recovery. A key part of the Journal's Publication output will see key experts invited to assess and comment on the current trends in disaster research, as well as highlight key papers.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信