Validity and Reliability of Measurement Tool of Public Trust of Health Care Providers

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Health Management and Economics, Research Center for Social Determinates of Health,, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

2 Department of Statistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

3 Department of Health Services Management, Research Center for Social Determinates of Health, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

Purpose:
Reducing the level of trust in the health system may lead to consequences such as seeking a secondary view of the disease or lowering the level of acceptance of treatment. Considering the importance of public trust in the health system in achieving its goals, the present study aimed to standardize the public trust in health services providers’ questionnaire.
Methods:
In the present study, the validity and reliability of the instrument for measuring public trust were assessed. This analytical and cross-sectional study was conducted in the first six months of 2018 among citizens of Mashhad, who received services of government hospitals. The validity of this tool was carried out by interviewing 20 specialists using two methods: "Lavashe" and "Walts and Basel". To determine the reliability of the questionnaire completed by 50 citizens, Cronbach's alpha and intra-cluster correlation coefficient were calculated. The results were analyzed using SPSS software version 20.
Results:
In the validity stage based on the opinions of 20 experts, 36 of the 3 questions were queried with CVR less than 0.42 and the connection was less than 0.7. In the remaining 33 questions, the Content Validity Index was acceptable. Questions that had a low resolution and simplicity were reviewed. Cronbach's alpha coefficient and intra-cluster correlation coefficient for the whole questionnaire were 0.83 and 0.81, respectively. After dimensions of the Cronbach's alpha coefficient questionnaire only 2 were less than 0.7.
Conclusion:
Based on the findings of this study, public trust in health care has acceptable validity and reliability. Therefore, policymakers and health care planners can periodically use caregivers to measure public confidence in healthcare providers.

Keywords

References

  1. Ruscio K. Trust, Democracy, and Public Management: A Theoretical Argument. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 1996; 6(3): 78-86.
  2. Bourne P, Francis C, Kerr-Campbell M. Patient care: is interpersonal trust missing? . N Am J Med Sci 2010; 2(3): 126-133.
  3. Cunningham P. High medical cost burdens, patient trust, and perceived quality of care. J Gen Intern Med 2009; 24(3): 415-420.
  4. Gilbert T. Towards a politics of trust. Journal of Advanced Nursing  1998; 27: 1010-1016.
  5. Thorne SE, Robinson CA. Reciprocal trust in health care relationships. Journal of advanced nursing 1988; 13(6): 782-789.
  6. Thom DH, Hall MA, Pawlson LG. Measuring patients’ trust in physicians when assessing quality of care. Health affairs 2004; 23(4): 124-132.
  7. Van Der Schee E, Braun B, Calnan M, Schnee M. Public trust in health care: A comparison of Germany, The Netherlands, and England and Wales. Health Policy 2007; 81: 56-67.
  8. Anderson LA, Dedrick RF. Development of the Trust in Physician scale: a measure to assess interpersonal trust in patient-physician relationships. Psychological reports. 1990; 67(3_suppl): 1091-1100.
  9. Straten GF, Friele RD, Groenewegen PP. Public trust in Dutch health care. Social science & medicine 2002; 55(2): 227-234.
  10. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity 1. Personnel psychology 1975; 28(4): 563-575.
  11. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisa and recommendations. Research in nursing & health 2007; 30(4): 459-467.
  12. Squires A, Bruyneel L, Aiken LH, Van den Heede K, et al. Cross-cultural evaluation of the relevance of the HCAHPS survey in five European countries. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2012; 24(5): 470-475.
  13. Calnan MW, Sanford E. Public trust in health care: the system or the doctor? BMJ Quality & Safety 2004; 13(2): 92-97.
  14. Van Der Schee E, Braun B, Calnan M, Schnee M, Groenewegen PP. Public trust in health care: a comparison of Germany, the Netherlands, and England and Wales. Health Policy 2007; 81(1): 56-67.
  15. Ozawa S, Sripad P. How do you measure trust in the health system? A systematic review of the literature. Social science & medicine 2013; 91: 10-14.
  16. Tabrizi J, Saadati M, Sadeghi Bazargani H, Abedi L, Alibabayee R. Iranian public trust in health services: evidence from Tabriz, Islamic Republic of Iran. EMHJ-Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal 2016; 22(10): 713-728.
  17. Hajavi A, Khoushgam M, Hatami M. A Comparative Study on regarding Rate of the Privacy Principles in legal Issues by WHO Manual at Teaching Hospitals of Iran, Tehran and Shahid Beheshti Medical Sciences Universities; 2008.p146
  18. Sadoughi F, Khoush Km, Siavash B. A comparative investigation of the access levels and confidentiality of medical document in iran and selected countries; 2007: 215
  19. Claerhout B, DeMoor G. Privacy protection for clinical and genomic data: The use of privacy-enhancing techniques in medicine. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2005; 74(4): 257-265.
  20. WHO. Measurement of trends and equity in coverage of health interventions in the context of universal health coverage. Meeting Report RFC, Bellagio; 2012: 167.
Journal of Paramedical Sciences & Rehabilitation
Volume 9, Issue 1
March 2020
Pages 81-90

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics