ArticlePloS one2024
Measuring the work environment among healthcare professionals: Validation of the Dutch version of the Culture of Care Barometer.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesA positive work environment (WE) is paramount for healthcare employees to provide good quality care. To stimulate a positive work environment, employees' perceptions of the work environment need to be assessed. This study aimed to assess the reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the Culture of Care Barometer (CoCB-NL) survey in hospitals.
methodsThis longitudinal validation study explored content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, hypothesis testing for construct validity, and responsiveness. The study was conducted at seven departments in two Dutch university hospitals. The departments were included based on their managers' motivation to better understand their employees' perception of their WE. All employees of participating departments were invited to complete the survey (n = 1,730).
resultsThe response rate was 63.2%. The content of the CoCB-NL was considered relevant and accessible by the respondents. Two factor models were found. First, confirmative factor analysis of the original four-factor structure showed an acceptable fit (X2 2006.49; df 399; p = <0.001; comparative fit index [CFI] 0.82; Tucker-Lewis index [TLI] 0.80; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] 0.09). Second, explanatory factor analysis revealed a five-factor model including 'organizational support', 'leadership', 'collegiality and teamwork', 'relationship with manager', and 'employee influence and development'. This model was confirmed and showed a better fit (X2 1552.93; df 395; p = < 0.00; CFI 0.87; TLI 0.86; RMSEA 0.07). Twelve out of eighteen hypotheses were confirmed. Responsiveness was assumed between the measurements.
conclusionsThe CoCB-NL is a valid and reliable instrument for identifying areas needing improvement in the WE. Furthermore, the CoCB-NL appears to be responsive and therefore useful for longitudinal evaluations of healthcare employees' work environments.
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.