Dataset Information

Developing and validating an instrument to assess non-hospital health centers' preparedness to provide initial emergency care: a study protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Basic emergency management in urban and rural areas is a critical challenge. This paper presents the protocol for developing, validating and piloting an instrument to assess the preparedness of non-hospital health centres which deliver initial emergency care.

Methods and analysis

This study will be designed based on a sequential exploratory mixed method in two phases, in each of which there are three steps. In the first step of phase I, an extensive systematic review will be conducted. In the second step, through focus group discussions (FGDs), the experts' views on the definition of domains and items of the instrument will be compiled. In addition, semistructured interviews with the target group will be performed. Then, qualitative framework analysis will be performed. In the last step of phase I, the results of both steps will be triangulated by a panel of experts to define the domains and items to be included in the instrument. Phase II will include content validity, feasibility and reliability of the instrument. Content validity of the instrument will be assessed using modified Kappa coefficient based on clarity and relevance criteria. Feasibility of the instrument will be assessed through its implementation in 10 non-hospital health centres in Tabriz, which will be selected randomly. Reliability will be assessed in a pilot on 30 non-hospital health centres through using stratified random sampling method. Reliability of the instrument will be assessed through measuring internal consistency, test-retest reliability and inter-rater agreement. The main statistical methods for assessing reliability will include Cronbach's alpha, intraclass correlation coefficient and Kendall's tau-b. All the statistical analyses will be performed using Stata V.14.

Ethics and dissemination

This study is approved by Tabriz University of Medical Sciences Research Ethics Committee (IR.TBZMED.REC.1397.145). The results of the study will be presented at national scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

SUBMITTER: Amir Behghadami M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6661924 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Management of Life-threatening Emergency (LTE) patients in urban and rural areas is an important challenge, which can affect pre-hospital mortality rate. Therefore, Non-hospital Health Center (NHHC) must be prepared to manage such emergency cases that may occur in the geographic area where these centers act. The aim of this study was to explore domains related to the preparedness of NHHCs to manage LTE patients through resorting to healthcare providers' and experts' perspectives.Methods: A qualitative exploratory study was applied using Semi-Structured Interviews (SSIs) and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). Prior to beginning data collection, the study and its objectives were explained to the participants and their informed consents were obtained. Then, SSIs and FGDs were conducted by two trained researchers using an interview guide, which was developed through literature review and consulting experts. In total, 12 SSIs were done with the providers at different NHHCs in Tabriz. In addition, 2 FGDs were conducted with the specialists in Emergency Medicine (EM) and Primary Health Care (PHC), and the executives of health centers, with over 5?years of work experience, and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) experts. Purposive sampling method was used in this study. All SSIs and FGDs were audio recorded and subsequently transcribed. Framework Analysis was employed to manually analyze the interview transcripts from all the SSIs and FGDs.Results: The interview transcripts analysis resulted in the emergence of 3 themes and 11 sub-themes, categorized according to Donabedian's triple model. 5 sub-themes were related to input, including medical equipment and supplies, environmental infrastructures of the centers, emergency medicines, human resource, and protocols, guidelines and policies. 4 sub-themes were related to process, including providing clinical services, medicine storage capacity, maintenance of equipment, and management process. Finally, 2 sub-themes were related to outcome, which were patients' satisfaction with the quality of care and improved survival of LTE patients.Conclusions: The results of this study can provide a new perspective for health managers and policy makers on how to evaluate the preparedness of NHHCs in managing LTE patients. In addition, it will be used to develop instruments to measure the preparedness of these centers.

Project description:Adopting healthy lifestyles is greatly influenced by an individual's perceived risk of developing non-communicable diseases (NCDs). This study aimed to develop and validate a questionnaire that can assess an individual's perceived risk of developing four major NCDs. We used the exploratory sequential mixed methods design. The qualitative part developed a questionnaire by two rounds of Delphi expert panels. The quantitative part validated the questionnaire using both exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We used separate samples for EFA (n = 150) and CFA (n = 210). The participants were aged between 25-60 years of both sexes with no known history of NCDs, and face-to-face interviews were conducted. First, we generated an 86-item questionnaire based on the health belief model. Two expert panels ensured the questionnaire's content validity. The experts removed the overlapped items and items that did not represent the specific construct and developed a 51-item questionnaire. Next, we validated the questionnaire. We conducted a parallel analysis to determine the number of factors to be extracted. EFA constituted a five-factor model with 22 high loading items, which extracted 54% of the variance. We run four CFA models (single factor, five-factor, bifactor, and hierarchical) and tested the hypothesized five-factor model. It was found that the 21-item questionnaire (removed one efficacy item due to low loading) was satisfied with good psychometric properties and fitted with observed data in the bifactor model (RMSEA = 0.051, CFI = 0.954, TLI = 0.938, SRMR = 0.054). Hence, an individual's perceived risk of getting NCDs was constituted with a general perceived risk construct and five specific constructs (perceived susceptibility, perceived barrier, perceived benefit, perceived self-efficacy, and perceived behavioral change intention). It can be measured using the developed questionnaire (NCD-PR5-21). Further research is warranted to assess the questionnaire's utility in a mismatch between risk perception and current risk; and individualized counseling for behavioral change communication.