Mehmet Demir, İrfan Yurdabakan, Oğulcan Çöme, Tolga Günvar
{"title":"初级保健中防御性医学实践规模的发展。","authors":"Mehmet Demir, İrfan Yurdabakan, Oğulcan Çöme, Tolga Günvar","doi":"10.1093/fampra/cmaf023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Defensive medicine, characterized by the avoidance of high-risk patients or the overuse of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions due to fear of litigation or complaints, poses significant challenges in primary care. Existing scales primarily focus on hospital settings, limiting their applicability to family physicians. This study aimed to develop and validate a scale tailored to measure defensive medicine behaviors in primary care contexts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Scale development involved reviewing the literature, conducting focus group discussions with family physicians, and consulting with experts. An initial 37-item draft was pilot-tested for clarity, resulting in a refined instrument. Data were collected from family physicians in two phases: exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with 252 participants and confirmatory factor analysis with 266 participants. Criterion validity was assessed by correlating the new scale with a previously validated defensive medicine scale. Reliability was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>EFA supported a five-factor structure: referral, complaint, e-report, verbal/physical violence, and interventional procedure dimensions. After item removal, the final 21-item scale demonstrated acceptable goodness-of-fit indices (χ²/df = 2.43, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.07, comparative-fit index (CFI) = 0.93). Criterion validity was evidenced by a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.350, P < .01) with an existing scale. Internal consistency was high, with both Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega at 0.92 for the total scale.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Primary Care Defensive Medicine Practices Scale is a valid and reliable instrument specifically tailored for primary care settings. It offers a more nuanced understanding of defensive behaviors, guiding targeted interventions to enhance care quality, patient safety, and resource utilization.</p>","PeriodicalId":12209,"journal":{"name":"Family practice","volume":"42 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development of a scale for defensive medicine practices in primary care.\",\"authors\":\"Mehmet Demir, İrfan Yurdabakan, Oğulcan Çöme, Tolga Günvar\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/fampra/cmaf023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Defensive medicine, characterized by the avoidance of high-risk patients or the overuse of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions due to fear of litigation or complaints, poses significant challenges in primary care. Existing scales primarily focus on hospital settings, limiting their applicability to family physicians. This study aimed to develop and validate a scale tailored to measure defensive medicine behaviors in primary care contexts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Scale development involved reviewing the literature, conducting focus group discussions with family physicians, and consulting with experts. An initial 37-item draft was pilot-tested for clarity, resulting in a refined instrument. Data were collected from family physicians in two phases: exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with 252 participants and confirmatory factor analysis with 266 participants. Criterion validity was assessed by correlating the new scale with a previously validated defensive medicine scale. Reliability was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>EFA supported a five-factor structure: referral, complaint, e-report, verbal/physical violence, and interventional procedure dimensions. After item removal, the final 21-item scale demonstrated acceptable goodness-of-fit indices (χ²/df = 2.43, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.07, comparative-fit index (CFI) = 0.93). Criterion validity was evidenced by a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.350, P < .01) with an existing scale. Internal consistency was high, with both Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega at 0.92 for the total scale.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Primary Care Defensive Medicine Practices Scale is a valid and reliable instrument specifically tailored for primary care settings. It offers a more nuanced understanding of defensive behaviors, guiding targeted interventions to enhance care quality, patient safety, and resource utilization.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12209,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Family practice\",\"volume\":\"42 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Family practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmaf023\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmaf023","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Development of a scale for defensive medicine practices in primary care.
Background: Defensive medicine, characterized by the avoidance of high-risk patients or the overuse of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions due to fear of litigation or complaints, poses significant challenges in primary care. Existing scales primarily focus on hospital settings, limiting their applicability to family physicians. This study aimed to develop and validate a scale tailored to measure defensive medicine behaviors in primary care contexts.
Methods: Scale development involved reviewing the literature, conducting focus group discussions with family physicians, and consulting with experts. An initial 37-item draft was pilot-tested for clarity, resulting in a refined instrument. Data were collected from family physicians in two phases: exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with 252 participants and confirmatory factor analysis with 266 participants. Criterion validity was assessed by correlating the new scale with a previously validated defensive medicine scale. Reliability was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega.
Results: EFA supported a five-factor structure: referral, complaint, e-report, verbal/physical violence, and interventional procedure dimensions. After item removal, the final 21-item scale demonstrated acceptable goodness-of-fit indices (χ²/df = 2.43, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.07, comparative-fit index (CFI) = 0.93). Criterion validity was evidenced by a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.350, P < .01) with an existing scale. Internal consistency was high, with both Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega at 0.92 for the total scale.
Conclusions: The Primary Care Defensive Medicine Practices Scale is a valid and reliable instrument specifically tailored for primary care settings. It offers a more nuanced understanding of defensive behaviors, guiding targeted interventions to enhance care quality, patient safety, and resource utilization.
期刊介绍:
Family Practice is an international journal aimed at practitioners, teachers, and researchers in the fields of family medicine, general practice, and primary care in both developed and developing countries.
Family Practice offers its readership an international view of the problems and preoccupations in the field, while providing a medium of instruction and exploration.
The journal''s range and content covers such areas as health care delivery, epidemiology, public health, and clinical case studies. The journal aims to be interdisciplinary and contributions from other disciplines of medicine and social science are always welcomed.