Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Validity and Reliability of Turkish Version of Deprivation in Primary Care Questionnaire (DiPCare–Q)

Year 2017, Volume: 11 Issue: 2, 79 - 87, 20.06.2017
https://doi.org/10.21763/tjfmpc.317738

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study
is to test the validity and reliability of Turkish version of Deprivation in
Primary Care Questionnaire (DiPCare-Q).  Method:
In the study, a survey, consisting of socio-demographic information, living
standard indicators and DiPCare-Q Turkish form, was applied with face to face
interviews to 160 people who are literate, older than 18 years age and applied
to Family Health Center in Akyurt district of Ankara. The validity of the scale
was assessed by content validity, construct validity and discriminant validity.
To test the reliability of the scale, internal consistency and item total
correlation coefficients were calculated.  Results:  61.3% of the participants were women, 74.4%
were married and 62.5% were under high school. In the content validity,
Kendall’s Coefficient of Condordance W was calculated as 0,441 and p <0,05.
In construct validity, the results of Principal component analysis showed that
the model explained 68.49% of the total variance with 3 factors. For
dicriminant validity, DiPCare-Q total and subscale scores of participants were
compared according to objective indicators of poverty. And  it was determined that there were statistically
significant differences in scores of social deprivation dimension, material
deprivation dimension and total DiPCare-Q according to objective indicators of
poverty DiPCare-Q.  In the evaluation of
reliability of scale, the Kuder-Richardson 20 coefficient was calculated as
0,80 which is the result that the scale is reliable. In addition, correlations
of the items with the total score were determined above the standard value of
0.40. Conclusion: The results of the study showed that Turkish version
of DiPCare-Q is valid and reliable, so its usage was recommended in primary
care services.  


Amaç: Çalışmanın amacı Birinci Basamak Sağlık
Hizmetlerinde Yoksunluk Anketinin (DiPCare–Q) Türkçe geçerlik ve güvenirliğini
test etmektir. Yöntem: Araştırmada sosyo-demografik bilgiler, yaşam
standardı göstergeleri ve DiPCare–Q Türkçe formundan oluşan anket Ankara ili
Akyurt ilçesinde Aile Sağlığı Merkezine başvuran 18 yaş ve üstü toplam 160
kişiye yüz yüze görüşme yöntemi ile uygulanmıştır. Ölçeğin geçerliği; kapsam
geçerliği, yapı geçerliği ve yordama geçerliği ile değerlendirilmiştir. Ölçeğin
güvenirliğini test etmek için iç tutarlılık ve düzeltilmiş madde-toplam
korelâsyonu katsayıları hesaplanmıştır. Bulgular: Araştırmaya katılan
160 kişinin %61,3’ü kadın, %74,4’ü evli, %62,5’i lise altı eğitimlidir. Ölçeğin
kapsam geçerliği değerlendirmesinde uzman görüşleri arasındaki uyum için
yapılan Kendall’s W sayısı 0,441 ve p<0,05 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Ölçeğin
yapı geçerliği için yapılan temel bileşenler faktör analizi sonuçları
DiPCare–Q’nun 3 faktör ile toplam varyansın %68,49’unu açıkladığını göstermektedir.
Yordama geçerliği için yoksulluğun nesnel göstergelerine göre DiPCare–Q toplam
ve alt boyut puan ortalamaları karşılaştırılmış; DiPCare–Q’nun maddi yoksunluk
boyutu, sosyal yoksunluk boyutu ve toplam puan ortalamaları yoksulluğun nesnel
göstergelerine istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık gösterdiği belirlenmiştir
(p<0,05). Ölçeğin güvenirliğinin değerlendirilmesinde incelenen
Kuder–Richardson 20 katsayısı 0,80 olarak hesaplanmış, ölçeğin güvenilir olduğu
sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Ayrıca maddelerin toplam puanla korelâsyonları da
standart değer 0,40’ın üzerinde belirlenmiştir. Sonuç: Çalışma sonucunda
DiPCare–Q Türkçe versiyonunun geçerli ve güvenilir olduğu belirlenmiş ve
birinci basamak sağlık hizmetlerinde kullanımı önerilmiştir.  


References

  • 1. Institute of Medicine Study Committee. The Future of Public Health. 88(2). Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1988. p.37.
  • 2. Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH). Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity through Action on the Social Determinants of Health. Final Report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008. p.7.
  • 3. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Development Co-operation Report 2013: Ending Poverty. OECD Publishing; 2013. p.19. DOI: 10.1787/dcr-2013-en.
  • 4. World Health Organization (WHO) and World Bank. Dying for Change: Poor People’s Experience of Health and Ill-Health. Washington DC: WHO/World Bank; 2002. p.6.
  • 5. OECD and WHO. Poverty and Health. DAC Guidelines and Reference Series. France: OECD Publishing; 2003. p.20.
  • 6. WHO. World Health Statistics 2015. Geneva: WHO; 2015. p.23.
  • 7. Falkingham J, Namazie C. Measuring Health and Poverty: A Review of Approaches to Identifying the Poor. London: DFID Health Systems Resource Centre; 2002. p.7.
  • 8. Sen A. Poor, relatively speaking. Oxford Econ Pap 1983; 35(2): 153-169. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a041587.
  • 9. Sen A. Capability and well-being. In: Hausman DM, editor. The Philosophy of Economics. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1993. p. 270-293.
  • 10. Zeumo VK, Tsoukiàs A, Somé B. A new methodology for multidimensional poverty measurement based on the capability approach. Socioecon Plann Sci 2014; 48: 273-289. DOI: 10.1016/j.seps.2014.04.002.
  • 11. Barlas C, Şantaş FC, Kar AC. Türkiye’de bölgesel bebek ölüm hızlarının sağlık ekonomisi perspektifinden karşılaştırma analizi. International Conference On Eurasian Economies 2014. p. 1-10.
  • 12. Boyer L, Baumstarck K, Iordanova T, Fernandez J, Jean P, Auquier P. A poverty-related quality of life questionnaire can help to detect health inequalities in emergency departments. J Clin Epidemiol 2014; 67 (3): 285-295. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.021.
  • 13. Vaucher P, Bischoff T, Diserens EA, Herzig L, Meystre-Agustoni G, Panese F. et al. Detecting and measuring deprivation in primary care: development, reliability and validity of a self-reported questionnaire: the DiPCare-Q. BMJ Open 2 2012: e000692. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000692.
  • 14. Taş R, editör. Ankara’nın Kentsel Yoksulluk Haritası. Ankara: Turgut Özal Üniversitesi Yayınları; 2012. p.44.
  • 15. Field A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London: SAGE Publications; 2009. p.647.
  • 16. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. Gelir ve Yaşam Koşulları Araştırması, 2014. 18633 sayılı Haber Bülteni; 2015. 17. Aksayan S, Gözüm S. Kültürlerarası ölçek uyarlaması için rehber 1: Ölçek uyarlama aşamaları ve dil uyarlaması. Hemşirelik Araştırma Dergisi 2002; 4 (1):9-14.
  • 18. Pantell M, Rehkopf D, Jutte D, Syme SL, Balmes J, Adler N. Social isolation: a predictor of mortality comparable to traditional clinical risk factors. Am J Public Health 2013; 103(11): 2056-2062. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301261.
  • 19. Valtorta NK, Kanaan M, Gilbody S, Ronzi S, Hanratty B. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for coronary heart disease and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal observational studies. Heart 2016; 0:1-8. DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2015-308790.
  • 20. Alexander GC, Casalino LP, Tseng CW, McFadden D, Meltzer DO. Barriers to patient physician communication about out-of-pocket costs. J Gen Intern Med 2004; 19:856e60. DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30249.x.
  • 21. Franks P, Fiscella K. Reducing disparities downstream: prospects and challenges. J Gen Intern Med 2008; 23:5; 672-677. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-008-0509-0.
  • 22. Bloch G, Rozmovits L, Giambrone B. Barriers to primary care responsiveness to poverty as a risk factor for health. BMC Fam Pract 2011; 12: 62-67. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2296-12-62.
  • 23. Bodenmann P, Favrat B, Wolff H, Guessous I, Panese F, Herzig L. et al. Screening primary-care patients forgoing health care for economic reasons. PLoS one 2014; 9(4): e94006. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094006.
  • 24. Chatelard S, Bodenmann P, Vaucher P, Herzig L, Bischoff T, Burnand B. General practitioners can evaluate the material, social and health dimensions of patient social status. PloS one 2014; 9(1): e84828. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0084828.
Year 2017, Volume: 11 Issue: 2, 79 - 87, 20.06.2017
https://doi.org/10.21763/tjfmpc.317738

Abstract

References

  • 1. Institute of Medicine Study Committee. The Future of Public Health. 88(2). Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1988. p.37.
  • 2. Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH). Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity through Action on the Social Determinants of Health. Final Report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008. p.7.
  • 3. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Development Co-operation Report 2013: Ending Poverty. OECD Publishing; 2013. p.19. DOI: 10.1787/dcr-2013-en.
  • 4. World Health Organization (WHO) and World Bank. Dying for Change: Poor People’s Experience of Health and Ill-Health. Washington DC: WHO/World Bank; 2002. p.6.
  • 5. OECD and WHO. Poverty and Health. DAC Guidelines and Reference Series. France: OECD Publishing; 2003. p.20.
  • 6. WHO. World Health Statistics 2015. Geneva: WHO; 2015. p.23.
  • 7. Falkingham J, Namazie C. Measuring Health and Poverty: A Review of Approaches to Identifying the Poor. London: DFID Health Systems Resource Centre; 2002. p.7.
  • 8. Sen A. Poor, relatively speaking. Oxford Econ Pap 1983; 35(2): 153-169. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a041587.
  • 9. Sen A. Capability and well-being. In: Hausman DM, editor. The Philosophy of Economics. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1993. p. 270-293.
  • 10. Zeumo VK, Tsoukiàs A, Somé B. A new methodology for multidimensional poverty measurement based on the capability approach. Socioecon Plann Sci 2014; 48: 273-289. DOI: 10.1016/j.seps.2014.04.002.
  • 11. Barlas C, Şantaş FC, Kar AC. Türkiye’de bölgesel bebek ölüm hızlarının sağlık ekonomisi perspektifinden karşılaştırma analizi. International Conference On Eurasian Economies 2014. p. 1-10.
  • 12. Boyer L, Baumstarck K, Iordanova T, Fernandez J, Jean P, Auquier P. A poverty-related quality of life questionnaire can help to detect health inequalities in emergency departments. J Clin Epidemiol 2014; 67 (3): 285-295. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.021.
  • 13. Vaucher P, Bischoff T, Diserens EA, Herzig L, Meystre-Agustoni G, Panese F. et al. Detecting and measuring deprivation in primary care: development, reliability and validity of a self-reported questionnaire: the DiPCare-Q. BMJ Open 2 2012: e000692. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000692.
  • 14. Taş R, editör. Ankara’nın Kentsel Yoksulluk Haritası. Ankara: Turgut Özal Üniversitesi Yayınları; 2012. p.44.
  • 15. Field A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London: SAGE Publications; 2009. p.647.
  • 16. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. Gelir ve Yaşam Koşulları Araştırması, 2014. 18633 sayılı Haber Bülteni; 2015. 17. Aksayan S, Gözüm S. Kültürlerarası ölçek uyarlaması için rehber 1: Ölçek uyarlama aşamaları ve dil uyarlaması. Hemşirelik Araştırma Dergisi 2002; 4 (1):9-14.
  • 18. Pantell M, Rehkopf D, Jutte D, Syme SL, Balmes J, Adler N. Social isolation: a predictor of mortality comparable to traditional clinical risk factors. Am J Public Health 2013; 103(11): 2056-2062. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301261.
  • 19. Valtorta NK, Kanaan M, Gilbody S, Ronzi S, Hanratty B. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for coronary heart disease and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal observational studies. Heart 2016; 0:1-8. DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2015-308790.
  • 20. Alexander GC, Casalino LP, Tseng CW, McFadden D, Meltzer DO. Barriers to patient physician communication about out-of-pocket costs. J Gen Intern Med 2004; 19:856e60. DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30249.x.
  • 21. Franks P, Fiscella K. Reducing disparities downstream: prospects and challenges. J Gen Intern Med 2008; 23:5; 672-677. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-008-0509-0.
  • 22. Bloch G, Rozmovits L, Giambrone B. Barriers to primary care responsiveness to poverty as a risk factor for health. BMC Fam Pract 2011; 12: 62-67. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2296-12-62.
  • 23. Bodenmann P, Favrat B, Wolff H, Guessous I, Panese F, Herzig L. et al. Screening primary-care patients forgoing health care for economic reasons. PLoS one 2014; 9(4): e94006. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094006.
  • 24. Chatelard S, Bodenmann P, Vaucher P, Herzig L, Bischoff T, Burnand B. General practitioners can evaluate the material, social and health dimensions of patient social status. PloS one 2014; 9(1): e84828. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0084828.
There are 23 citations in total.

Details

Journal Section Orijinal Articles
Authors

Fikriye Yılmaz

Burcu Yılmaz This is me

Publication Date June 20, 2017
Submission Date May 31, 2017
Published in Issue Year 2017 Volume: 11 Issue: 2

Cite

Vancouver Yılmaz F, Yılmaz B. Validity and Reliability of Turkish Version of Deprivation in Primary Care Questionnaire (DiPCare–Q). TJFMPC. 2017;11(2):79-87.

English or Turkish manuscripts from authors with new knowledge to contribute to understanding and improving health and primary care are welcome.