Psychometric properties of the Swedish version of the Fear of Complications Questionnaire

Objectives: To translate and evaluate the psychometric properties of the Swedish version of the Fear of Complications Questionnaire. Design: Cross-sectional study design and scale development. Settings: Totally, 469 adults (response rate 63.5%) with Type 1 diabetes completed the questionnaires. Participants were recruited from two university hospitals in Sweden. Participants: Eligible patients were those who met the following inclusion criteria: diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes, diabetes duration of at least 1 year and aged at least 18 years. Methods: The Fear of Complications Questionnaire was translated using the forward-backward translation method. Factor analyses of the questionnaire were performed in two steps using both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Convergent validity was examined using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Fear of Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey. Internal consistency was estimated using Cronbach’s alpha.Results: Exploratory factor analysis supported a two-factor solution. One factor contained three items having to do with fear of kidney-related complications and one factor included the rest of items concerning fear of other diabetes-related complications, as well as fear of complications in general. Internal consistency was high Cronbach’s alpha 0.96. The findings also gave support for convergent validity, with significant positive correlations between measures (r = 0.51 to 0.54). Conclusion: The clinical relevance of the identified two-factor model with a structure of one dominant subdomain may be considered. We suggest, however a one-factor model covering all the items as a relevant basis to assess fear of complications among people with Type 1 diabetes.

Swedish translation and psychometric testing of the safety attitudes questionnaire (operating room version)

Background: Tens of millions of patients worldwide suffer from avoidable disabling injuries and death every year. Measuring the safety climate in health care is an important step in improving patient safety. The most commonly used instrument to measure safety climate is the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ). The aim of the present study was to establish the validity and reliability of the translated version of the SAQ. Methods: The SAQ was translated and adapted to the Swedish context. The survey was then carried out with 374 respondents in the operating room (OR) setting. Data was received from three hospitals, a total of 237 responses. Cronbach's alpha and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to evaluate the reliability and validity of the instrument. Results: The Cronbach's alpha values for each of the factors of the SAQ ranged between 0.59 and 0.83. The CFA and its goodness-of-fit indices (SRMR 0.055, RMSEA 0.043, CFI 0.98) showed good model fit. Intercorrelations between the factors safety climate, teamwork climate, job satisfaction, perceptions of management, and working conditions showed moderate to high correlation with each other. The factor stress recognition had no significant correlation with teamwork climate, perception of management, or job satisfaction. Conclusions: Therefore, the Swedish translation and psychometric testing of the SAQ (OR version) has good construct validity. However, the reliability analysis suggested that some of the items need further refinement to establish sound internal consistency. As suggested by previous research, the SAQ is potentially a useful tool for evaluating safety climate. However, further psychometric testing is required with larger samples to establish the psychometric properties of the instrument for use in Sweden.

Health system context and implementation of evidence-based practices-development and validation of the Context Assessment for Community Health (COACH) tool for low- and middle-income settings

Background: The gap between what is known and what is practiced results in health service users not benefitting from advances in healthcare, and in unnecessary costs. A supportive context is considered a key element for successful implementation of evidence-based practices (EBP). There were no tools available for the systematic mapping of aspects of organizational context influencing the implementation of EBPs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Thus, this project aimed to develop and psychometrically validate a tool for this purpose. Methods: The development of the Context Assessment for Community Health (COACH) tool was premised on the context dimension in the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework, and is a derivative product of the Alberta Context Tool. Its development was undertaken in Bangladesh, Vietnam, Uganda, South Africa and Nicaragua in six phases: (1) defining dimensions and draft tool development, (2) content validity amongst in-country expert panels, (3) content validity amongst international experts, (4) response process validity, (5) translation and (6) evaluation of psychometric properties amongst 690 health workers in the five countries. Results: The tool was validated for use amongst physicians, nurse/midwives and community health workers. The six phases of development resulted in a good fit between the theoretical dimensions of the COACH tool and its psychometric properties. The tool has 49 items measuring eight aspects of context: Resources, Community engagement, Commitment to work, Informal payment, Leadership, Work culture, Monitoring services for action and Sources of knowledge. Conclusions: Aspects of organizational context that were identified as influencing the implementation of EBPs in high-income settings were also found to be relevant in LMICs. However, there were additional aspects of context of relevance in LMICs specifically Resources, Community engagement, Commitment to work and Informal payment. Use of the COACH tool will allow for systematic description of the local healthcare context prior implementing healthcare interventions to allow for tailoring implementation strategies or as part of the evaluation of implementing healthcare interventions and thus allow for deeper insights into the process of implementing EBPs in LMICs.