发展和评估灾害管理评估工具的卫生保健从业人员。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Sara Elshami, Mohamed Izham Mohamed Ibrahim, Manar E Abdel-Rahman, Hanan Abdul Rahim, Banan Mukhalalati
{"title":"发展和评估灾害管理评估工具的卫生保健从业人员。","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":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11887106/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11887106/pdf/\",\"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}","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

摘要

背景:在过去的五十年中,灾害的频率和强度已经升级,突出了医疗从业者(HCPs)为灾害管理做好充分准备的重要性。尽管存在这一迫切需求,但明显缺乏完善和经过严格评估的评估工具来评估不同学科和灾害情景的卫生保健提供者的备灾情况。本研究旨在开发并评估一套卫生保健从业者灾害管理评估工具(DMAT_HCP)。方法:DMAT_HCP是根据灾害管理框架的四个阶段设计的,并对先前验证过的类似工具进行了文献综述。内容效度分别由9名和6名专家评估,而面部效度由11名hcp评估。采用DMAT_HCP对来自不同卫生学科和环境的107名HCPs进行检验,评价其结构效度(因子分析)和结构效度(收敛和发散)以及内部一致性信度。结果:DMAT_HCP包括5个Likert量表,评估了HCPs对灾害的准备和准备程度,内容效度指标令人满意(6位专家的CVI > 0.83)。对全部DMAT_HCP题项进行因子分析,发现知识、态度、实践、实践意愿和组织管理这两个子域共6个因素占数据方差的77.9%。收敛效度分析和发散效度分析表明,同一章节内所有条目与其对应章节得分的相关系数均大于0.4,且与本章节得分的相关性强于与其他章节得分的相关性。各部分的Cronbach's alpha值从0.89(态度)到0.97(组织管理)不等,DMAT_HCP的总体Cronbach's alpha值为0.90。结论:本研究证实了DMAT_HCP在概念和方法上都是有效和可靠的。该方法具有较强的内容效度,能够准确地测量预期构念,并能有效地区分不相关构念。该工具还在其组件之间展示了出色的内部一致性可靠性。该工具提供了全面的、全球适用的灾害管理评估,适用于各种医疗保健专业、设置、灾害环境和管理阶段。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Developing and evaluating a Disaster Management Assessment Tool for Health Care Practitioners.

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.

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
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.
×
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