ArticlePrimary health care research & development2024
Are remote health clinics primary health care focused? Validation of the Primary Health Care Engagement (PHCE) Scale for the Australian remote primary health care setting.
Article in Primary health care research & development, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo test and validate a measure of primary health care (PHC) engagement in the Australian remote health context.
backgroundPHC 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.
methodsA 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.
findingsModifications 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.