Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

SAĞLIK HİZMETİ SUNUMUNDA ZENOFOBİ (XHCD) ÖLÇEĞİNİN GELİŞTİRİLMESİ

Year 2024, Volume: 9 Issue: 2, 92 - 102, 05.06.2024
https://doi.org/10.35232/estudamhsd.1473351

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı “Sağlık hizmeti sunumunda zenofobi ölçeği”nin geliştirilmesi ve toplumumuzdaki geçerlilik ve güvenirliğinin değerlendirilmesidir. Eylül-Aralık 2023 tarihleri arasında gerçekleştirilen metodolojik bir ölçek geliştirme çalışmasıdır. Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında örneklem büyüklüğünün ölçekteki soru sayısının 10-20 katı olması önerilmektedir. Geliştirilmesi planlanan ölçek 18 sorudan oluştuğundan, örneklemin üçüncü basamak bir hastanede çalışan 360 katılımcıdan oluşması kararlaştırıldı. Veriler SPSS ve AMOS paket programları ile değerlendirildi. Geçerlilik analizi olarak; kapsam (içerik) geçerliliği için Kapsam Geçerlik Oranı ve yapı geçerliliği için Açıklayıcı Faktör Analizi ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi uygulandı. Güvenirlik analizleri olarak; iç tutarlık analizi (Cronbach’s Alpha Katsayısı), test yeniden test güvenirliği ve alt-üst gruplara dayalı madde analizi uygulandı. Çalışma yaş ortalaması 31,5±7,5 (min=21, max=59) olan 101 erkek (%27,7) ve 264 kadın (%72,3) katılımcı ile tamamlandı. Açıklayıcı faktör analizi sonucu Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin katsayısı 0,91 bulundu ve Bartlett testi sonucu da anlamlı saptandı (X2=2470,8 ve p<0,001). Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi değerleri; X²/sd= 2,94, GFI= 0,901, AGFI= 0,866, CFI= 0,912, RMSEA= 0,073 olarak bulundu. XHCD Ölçeğinin güvenirlik analizleri kapsamında Cronbach alfa değeri 0,88 olarak bulundu. Sonuç olarak, ölçeğin Türk toplum ve kültüründe geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek olarak kullanılabileceği kanıtlanmıştır.

Ethical Statement

Çalışma için gerekli izinler alındı (Kütahya Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi Girişimler Olmayan Klinik Araştırmalar Etik Kurulu, 06.09.2023 tarih ve 2023/10-11 sayılı etik kurul kurul kararı).

Supporting Institution

Çalışma için destek alınmamaıştır.

References

  • Başaran CH. Rethinking Xenophobia and Medical Xenophobia. TJPH. 2022;20(3):458-73. doi:10.20518/tjph.1086392.
  • Yakushko O. Modern-day Xenophobia: Critical Historical and Theoretical Perspectives on the Roots of Anti-immigrant Prejudice. USA: Springer; 2018. Available from: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-00644-0
  • Devakumar D, Selvarajah S, Abubakar I, Kim SS, McKee M, Sabharwal NS, et al. Racism, xenophobia, discrimination, and the determination of health. The Lancet. 2022;400(10368):2097–108. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01972-9.
  • Abubakar I, Gram L, Lasoye S, Achiume ET, Becares L, Bola GK, et al. Confronting the consequences of racism, xenophobia, and discrimination on health and health-care systems. The Lancet. 2022;400(10368):2137–46. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01989-4.
  • Devakumar D, Selvarajah S, Shannon G, Muraya K, Lasoye S, Corona S, et al. Racism, the public health crisis we can no longer ignore. The Lancet. 2020;395(10242):e112–3. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31371-4
  • Crush J, Tawodzera G. Medical Xenophobia: Zimbabwean Access to Health Services in South Africa. South African Migration Program (SAMP). Canada: 2011. Available from: https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1448546/medical-xenophobia/2080323/
  • UNHCR. Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Turkey. 2023 [cited 2024 Apr 22]. Available from: https://www.unhcr.org/tr/turkiyedeki-multeciler-ve-siginmacilar
  • Karagöz Y. SPSS 22 Uygulamalı Biyoistatistik: Tıp, eczacılık, diş hekimliği ve sağlık bilimleri için. 2nd ed. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık; 2015.
  • Gorsuch, R. Factor Analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Psychology Press; 1983. doi:10.4324/9780203781098.
  • White JA, Blaauw D, Rispel LC. Social exclusion and the perspectives of health care providers on migrants in Gauteng public health facilities, South Africa. PLoS One. 2020;15(12):e0244080. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0244080
  • 1Basaran CH, Sayligil O. Xenophobia and medicine (profession of a doctor): can the two coexist in the 21st century? Acta Bioeth. 2022;28(1):35–50. doi:10.4067/s1726-569x2022000100035.
  • Delgado-Rico E, Carretero-Dios H, Ruch W. Content validity evidences in test development: An applied perspective. Int J Clin Heal Psychol. 2012;12(3):449–59. Available from: https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/64551/1/ijchp-421.pdf
  • Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. Sociol Methods Res. 1992;21(2):230–58. doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005.
  • Byrne BM. Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus. New York: Routledge; 2013. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9780203807644
  • Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model A Multidiscip J. 1999;6(1):1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
  • Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 5th ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2023.
  • Huang CC, Wang YM, Wu TW, Wang PA. An empirical analysis of the antecedents and performance consequences of using the moodle platform. Int J Inf Educ Technol. 2013;3(2):217. doi:10.7763/IJIET.2013.V3.267.
  • Burić I, Sorić I, Penezić Z. Emotion regulation in academic domain: Development and validation of the academic emotion regulation questionnaire (AERQ). Pers Individ Dif. 2016;96:138–47. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.074.
  • Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489–97. doi:10.1002/nur.20147.
  • Ayhan Y, Kocaman G, Bektaş M. The validity and reliability of attitude towards evidencebased nursing questionnaire for Turkish. J Res Dev Nurs. 2015;17(2–3):21–35.
  • Erkorkmaz Ü, Etikan İ, Demir O, Özdamar K, Sanioğlu SY. Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Fit Indices: Review. Turkiye Klin J Med Sci. 2013;33(1):210–23. doi:10.5336/medsci.2011-26747.
  • Karagöz Y, Bardakçı S. Bilimsel Araştırmalarda Kullanılan Ölçme Araçları ve Ölçek Geliştirme. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık; 2020.
  • Onarheim KH, Wickramage K, Ingleby D, Subramani S, Miljeteig I. Adopting an ethical approach to migration health policy, practice and research. BMJ Glob Heal. 2021;6(7):e006425. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006425.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE XENOPHOBIA IN HEALTHCARE DELIVERY (XHCD) SCALE

Year 2024, Volume: 9 Issue: 2, 92 - 102, 05.06.2024
https://doi.org/10.35232/estudamhsd.1473351

Abstract

The aim of this study is to develop the "Xenophobia in Healthcare Delivery Scale" and evaluate its validity and reliability in our society. It is a methodological scale development study carried out between September and December 2023. In scale development studies, it is recommended that the sample size be 10-20 times the number of questions in the scale. Since the scale planned to be developed consists of 18 questions, it was decided that the sample would consist of 360 participants working in a tertiary hospital. The data were evaluated with SPSS and AMOS package programs. As validity analysis; Content Validity Index was applied for content validity, and Exploratory Factor Analysis and Confirmatory Factor Analysis were applied for construct validity. As reliability analyses; Internal consistency analysis (Cronbach's Alpha Coefficient), test-retest reliability and item analysis based on lower-upper groups were applied. The study was completed with 101 male (27.7%) and 264 female (72.3%) participants with an average age of 31.5±7.5 (min=21, max=59). As a result of exploratory factor analysis, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin coefficient was found to be 0.91 and the Bartlett test result was also found to be significant (X2=2470.8 and p<0.001). Confirmatory factor analysis values were found to be X²/df= 2.94, GFI= 0.901, AGFI= 0.866, CFI= 0.912, RMSEA= 0.073. Within the scope of the reliability analysis of the XHCD Scale, Cronbach's alpha value was found to be 0.88. As a result, it has been proven that the scale can be used as a valid and reliable scale in Turkish society and culture.

References

  • Başaran CH. Rethinking Xenophobia and Medical Xenophobia. TJPH. 2022;20(3):458-73. doi:10.20518/tjph.1086392.
  • Yakushko O. Modern-day Xenophobia: Critical Historical and Theoretical Perspectives on the Roots of Anti-immigrant Prejudice. USA: Springer; 2018. Available from: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-00644-0
  • Devakumar D, Selvarajah S, Abubakar I, Kim SS, McKee M, Sabharwal NS, et al. Racism, xenophobia, discrimination, and the determination of health. The Lancet. 2022;400(10368):2097–108. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01972-9.
  • Abubakar I, Gram L, Lasoye S, Achiume ET, Becares L, Bola GK, et al. Confronting the consequences of racism, xenophobia, and discrimination on health and health-care systems. The Lancet. 2022;400(10368):2137–46. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01989-4.
  • Devakumar D, Selvarajah S, Shannon G, Muraya K, Lasoye S, Corona S, et al. Racism, the public health crisis we can no longer ignore. The Lancet. 2020;395(10242):e112–3. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31371-4
  • Crush J, Tawodzera G. Medical Xenophobia: Zimbabwean Access to Health Services in South Africa. South African Migration Program (SAMP). Canada: 2011. Available from: https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1448546/medical-xenophobia/2080323/
  • UNHCR. Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Turkey. 2023 [cited 2024 Apr 22]. Available from: https://www.unhcr.org/tr/turkiyedeki-multeciler-ve-siginmacilar
  • Karagöz Y. SPSS 22 Uygulamalı Biyoistatistik: Tıp, eczacılık, diş hekimliği ve sağlık bilimleri için. 2nd ed. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık; 2015.
  • Gorsuch, R. Factor Analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Psychology Press; 1983. doi:10.4324/9780203781098.
  • White JA, Blaauw D, Rispel LC. Social exclusion and the perspectives of health care providers on migrants in Gauteng public health facilities, South Africa. PLoS One. 2020;15(12):e0244080. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0244080
  • 1Basaran CH, Sayligil O. Xenophobia and medicine (profession of a doctor): can the two coexist in the 21st century? Acta Bioeth. 2022;28(1):35–50. doi:10.4067/s1726-569x2022000100035.
  • Delgado-Rico E, Carretero-Dios H, Ruch W. Content validity evidences in test development: An applied perspective. Int J Clin Heal Psychol. 2012;12(3):449–59. Available from: https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/64551/1/ijchp-421.pdf
  • Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. Sociol Methods Res. 1992;21(2):230–58. doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005.
  • Byrne BM. Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus. New York: Routledge; 2013. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9780203807644
  • Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model A Multidiscip J. 1999;6(1):1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
  • Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 5th ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2023.
  • Huang CC, Wang YM, Wu TW, Wang PA. An empirical analysis of the antecedents and performance consequences of using the moodle platform. Int J Inf Educ Technol. 2013;3(2):217. doi:10.7763/IJIET.2013.V3.267.
  • Burić I, Sorić I, Penezić Z. Emotion regulation in academic domain: Development and validation of the academic emotion regulation questionnaire (AERQ). Pers Individ Dif. 2016;96:138–47. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.074.
  • Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489–97. doi:10.1002/nur.20147.
  • Ayhan Y, Kocaman G, Bektaş M. The validity and reliability of attitude towards evidencebased nursing questionnaire for Turkish. J Res Dev Nurs. 2015;17(2–3):21–35.
  • Erkorkmaz Ü, Etikan İ, Demir O, Özdamar K, Sanioğlu SY. Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Fit Indices: Review. Turkiye Klin J Med Sci. 2013;33(1):210–23. doi:10.5336/medsci.2011-26747.
  • Karagöz Y, Bardakçı S. Bilimsel Araştırmalarda Kullanılan Ölçme Araçları ve Ölçek Geliştirme. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık; 2020.
  • Onarheim KH, Wickramage K, Ingleby D, Subramani S, Miljeteig I. Adopting an ethical approach to migration health policy, practice and research. BMJ Glob Heal. 2021;6(7):e006425. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006425.
There are 23 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Health Equity
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Ömer Faruk Tekin 0000-0002-7150-5933

Ece Arık 0000-0002-1786-2788

İnci Arıkan 0000-0001-5060-7722

Publication Date June 5, 2024
Submission Date April 25, 2024
Acceptance Date May 9, 2024
Published in Issue Year 2024 Volume: 9 Issue: 2

Cite

Vancouver Tekin ÖF, Arık E, Arıkan İ. DEVELOPMENT OF THE XENOPHOBIA IN HEALTHCARE DELIVERY (XHCD) SCALE. ESTUDAM Public Health Journal. 2024;9(2):92-102.

International Peer Reviewed Journal

Crossref Content Registration logo


The journal adopts Open Access Policy and does not request article proccessing charge (APC), article publishing charge or any other charges.

by-nc.eu.png
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License