To test and validate a measure of primary health care (PHC) engagement in the Australian remote health context.

PHC principles include quality improvement, community participation and orientation of health care, patient-centred continuity of care, accessibility, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Measuring the alignment of services with the principles of PHC provides a method of evaluating the quality of care in community settings.

A two-stage design of initial content and face validity evaluation by a panel of experts and then pilot-testing the instrument via survey methods was conducted. Twelve experts from clinical, education, management and research roles within the remote health setting evaluated each item in the original instrument. Panel members evaluated the representativeness and clarity of each item for face and content validity. Qualitative responses were also collected and included suggestions for changes to item wording. The modified tool was pilot-tested with 47 remote area nurses. Internal consistency reliability of the Australian Primary Health Care Engagement scale was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha. Construct validity of the Australian scale was evaluated using exploratory factor analysis and principal component analysis.

Modifications to suit the Australian context were made to 8 of the 28 original items. This modified instrument was pilot-tested with 47 complete responses. Overall, the scale showed high internal consistency reliability. The subscale constructs ‘Quality improvement’, ‘Accessibility-availability’ and ‘population orientation’ showed low levels of internal consistency reliability. However, the mean inter-item correlation was 0.31, 0.26 and 0.31, respectively, which are in the recommended range of 0.15 to 0.50 and indicate that the items are correlated and are measuring the same construct. The Australian PHCE scale is recommended as a tool for the evaluation of health services. Further testing on a larger sample may provide clarity over some items which may be open to interpretation.

Although the science of team science is no longer a new field, the measurement of team science and its standardization remain in relatively early stages of development. To describe the current state of team science assessment, we conducted an integrative review of measures of research collaboration quality and outcomes.

Collaboration measures were identified using both a literature review based on specific keywords and an environmental scan. Raters abstracted details about the measures using a standard tool. Measures related to collaborations with clinical care, education, and program delivery were excluded from this review.

We identified 44 measures of research collaboration quality, which included 35 measures with reliability and some form of statistical validity reported. Most scales focused on group dynamics. We identified 89 measures of research collaboration outcomes; 16 had reliability and 15 had a validity statistic. Outcome measures often only included simple counts of products; publications rarely defined how counts were delimited, obtained, or assessed for reliability. Most measures were tested in only one venue.

Although models of collaboration have been developed, in general, strong, reliable, and valid measurements of such collaborations have not been conducted or accepted into practice. This limitation makes it difficult to compare the characteristics and impacts of research teams across studies or to identify the most important areas for intervention. To advance the science of team science, we provide recommendations regarding the development and psychometric testing of measures of collaboration quality and outcomes that can be replicated and broadly applied across studies.

The study purpose was to provide evidence of validity for the Primary Health Care Engagement (PHCE) Scale, based on exploratory factor analysis and reliability findings from a large national survey of regulated nurses residing and working in rural and remote Canadian communities.

There are currently no published provider-level instruments to adequately assess delivery of community-based primary health care, relevant to ongoing primary health care (PHC) reform strategies across Canada and elsewhere. The PHCE Scale reflects a contemporary approach that emphasizes community-oriented and community-based elements of PHC delivery.

Data from the pan-Canadian Nursing Practice in Rural and Remote Canada II (RRNII) survey were used to conduct an exploratory factor analysis and evaluate the internal consistency reliability of the final PHCE Scale.

The RRNII survey sample included 1587 registered nurses, nurse practitioners, licensed practical nurses, and registered psychiatric nurses residing and working in rural and remote Canada. Exploratory factor analysis identified an eight-factor structure across 28 items overall, and good internal consistency reliability was indicated by an α estimate of 0.89 for the final scale. The final 28-item PHCE Scale includes three of four elements in a contemporary approach to PHC (accessibility/availability, community participation, and intersectoral team) and most community-oriented/based elements of PHC (interdisciplinary collaboration, person-centred, continuity, population orientation, and quality improvement). We recommend additional psychometric testing in a range of health care providers and settings, as the PHCE Scale shows promise as a tool for health care planners and researchers to test interventions and track progress in primary health care reform.

To report the development and psychometric evaluation of a scale to measure rural and remote (rural/remote) nurses’ perceptions of the engagement of their workplaces in key dimensions of primary health care (PHC).

Amidst ongoing PHC reforms, a comprehensive instrument is needed to evaluate the degree to which rural/remote health care settings are involved in the key dimensions that characterize PHC delivery, particularly from the perspective of professionals delivering care.

This study followed a three-phase process of instrument development and psychometric evaluation. A literature review and expert consultation informed instrument development in the first phase, followed by an iterative process of content evaluation in the second phase. In the final phase, a pilot survey was undertaken and item discrimination analysis employed to evaluate the internal consistency reliability of each subscale in the preliminary 60-item Primary Health Care Engagement (PHCE) Scale. The 60-item scale was subsequently refined to a 40-item instrument.

The pilot survey sample included 89 nurses in current practice who had experience in rural/remote practice settings. Participants completed either a web-based or paper survey from September to December, 2013. Following item discrimination analysis, the 60-item instrument was refined to a 40-item PHCE Scale consisting of 10 subscales, each including three to five items. Alpha estimates of the 10 refined subscales ranged from 0.61 to 0.83, with seven of the subscales demonstrating acceptable reliability (α⩾0.70). The refined 40-item instrument exhibited good internal consistency reliability (α=0.91). The 40-item PHCE Scale may be considered for use in future studies regardless of locale, to measure the extent to which health care professionals perceive their workplaces to be engaged in key dimensions of PHC.

The Mt Merapi volcanic eruption in October 2010 claimed more than 386 lives, injured thousands of survivors, and devastated the surrounding environment. No instrument was available in Indonesia to assess the psychosocial impact on survivors of environmental degradation caused by such natural disasters. We developed, translated, and tested an Indonesian version of the Environmental Distress Scale (EDS) for use as a tool to reliably measure environmental distress related to environmental damage in Indonesia.

The EDS, a prospective translation and psychometric study, was modified for use in a volcano disaster setting in Indonesia; translated into Indonesian; and pilot tested to determine meaning and cultural appropriateness. A test-retest study with 80 survivors of the 2010 Mt Merapi volcanic eruption measured the reliability of the tool.

The Indonesian version of the EDS (I-EDS) captured the content of the original EDS with appropriate adaptations for cultural differences of Indonesian natural disaster survivors.

The I-EDS can be considered a reliable tool for assessing the psychosocial impact of environmental degradation from natural disasters such as volcanic eruptions, which might be useful for Indonesian researchers. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2014;0:1–10)

To address limitations in measuring the preparedness capacities of health departments, we developed and tested the Local Health Department Preparedness Capacities Assessment Survey (PCAS).

Preexisting instruments and a modified 4-cycle Delphi panel process were used to select instrument items. Pilot test data were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis. Kappa statistics were calculated to examine rater agreement within items. The final instrument was fielded with 85 North Carolina health departments and a national matched comparison group of 248 health departments.

Factor analysis identified 8 initial domains: communications, surveillance and investigation, plans and protocols, workforce and volunteers, legal infrastructure, incident command, exercises and events, and corrective action. Kappa statistics and z scores indicated substantial to moderate agreement among respondents in 7 domains. Cronbach α coefficients ranged from 0.605 for legal infrastructure to 0.929 for corrective action. Mean scores and standard deviations were also calculated for each domain and ranged from 0.41 to 0.72, indicating sufficient variation in the sample to detect changes over time.

The PCAS is a useful tool to determine how well health departments are performing on preparedness measures and identify opportunities for future preparedness improvements. Future survey implementation will incorporate recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Public Health Preparedness Capabilities: National Standards for State and Local Planning. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2013;7:578–584)