BİR ÖLÇEK GELİŞTİRME ÇALIŞMASI: HASTA MAHREMİYET ÖLÇEĞİ

Year 2022, , 193 - 198, 31.12.2022

Vesile Eskici , Ayşegül Yayla , Zeynep Karaman Özlü

https://doi.org/10.52831/kjhs.1137632

Abstract

Amaç: Araştırma, hastaların hastanede mahremiyetlerinin korunması ile ilgili düşüncelerinin belirlenmesi için “Hastane Mahremiyet Ölçeği” geliştirmek amacıyla yapıldı.
Yöntem: Araştırma, metodolojik bir çalışmaydı. Bu çalışma, Ocak-Ağustos 2020 tarihleri arasında Türkiyenin doğusunda yer alan bir üniversite hastanesinin cerrahi ve dahiliye servislerinde yatmakta olan hastalarla gerçekleştirildi. Araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak “Hastane Mahremiyet Ölçeği Taslağı” (HMÖ) kullanıldı. Çalışma 150 cerrahi serviste yatan ve 168 dahili serviste yatan toplam 318 hasta ile gerçekleştirildi.
Bulgular: 33 madde ve 4 alt boyuttan (mahremiyet algısı, mahremiyetin korunması, ortam mahremiyeti ve mahremiyet farkındalığı) oluşan taslak ölçek uzman görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesine sunuldu ve değerlendirme sonucunda, Kapsam Geçerlik İndeksi (KGİ) 0.30’dan küçük bulunan 1 madde ölçekten çıkarıldı ve ölçek taslağı 32 maddeye indirildi. Uzman görüşü doğrultusunda ölçeğin KGİ değeri 0.90 idi. Cronbach Alpha değeri 0.915’dir. Yapı geçerliliği için açıklayıcı faktör analizi yapıldı, ölçeğin Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) değeri 0.914, Bartlett test χ2=2636.728; p=0.000 bulundu. Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları doğrultusunda doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılarak tasarlanan 4 faktörlü ölçek yapısı doğrulandı. Faktör yük değeri 0.30 altında olan maddeler ölçekten çıkarılarak, elde edilen analiz sonuçlarına göre ‘Hastane Mahremiyet Ölçeği’ 18 madde ve 4 alt boyut (mahremiyet algısı, mahremiyetin korunması, ortam mahremiyeti ve mahremiyet farkındalığı) ile son şeklini aldı.
Sonuç: Bu ölçek hastanede hasta mahremiyetinin değerlendirilmesinde kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir araçtır.

Keywords

Hasta, Mahremiyet, Hastane, Geliştirme, Ölçek

A SCALE DEVELOPMENT STUDY: PATIENT PRIVACY SCALE

Abstract

Objective: This study was carried out to develop a patient privacy scale to determine patients' thoughts on protection of their privacy at the hospital.
Method: The study is a methodological study. This study was carried out between January and August 2020 with patients hospitalized in except pediatric clincs, the surgical and internal medicine clinics in a university hospital in an eastern province in Turkey. The “patient privacy draft scale” (HPS) was used as a data collection tool. The study was conducted with a total of 318 patients hospitalized in 150 surgical wards and 168 in internal wards.
Results: The draft scale consisting of 33 items and 4 sub-dimensions (perception of privacy, protection of privacy, environment privacy and privacy awareness) prepared by the researchers in line with the literature was submitted for evaluation by experts through providing their opinions, and as a result of the evaluation, one item Content Validity Index (CVI) less than 0.30 was removed from the scale, and the draft scale was reduced to 32 items. According to the expert opinions, the CVI of the scale was 0.90. The value of Cronbach's Alpha was 0.915. An explanatory factor analysis was performed for construct validity; the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value of the scale was 0.914, and the Bartlett test's result was χ2=2636.728 (p=0.000). The four-factor scale structure, which was designed by explanatory and confirmatory factor analysis in line with validity and reliability studies, was verified. Items with a factor load value below 0.30 were removed from the scale, and according to the analysis results obtained, the patient privacy scale took its final form with 18 items and 4 subdimensions (perception of privacy, protection of privacy, environmental privacy, and privacy awareness).
Conclusion: This scale is a valid and reliable tool that can be used in the assessment of patient privacy in a hospital.

Keywords

Patient, Privacy, Hospital, Development, Scale

References

• Aslanyürek M. Internet and social network users’ opinions and awareness regarding internet security and online privacy. Maltepe University Communication Faculty Journal. 2016;3(1):80-106.
• Candan M, Bilgili N. Evaluation of nurse and midwives’ opinions on patient privacy. Gazi Journal of Health Sciences. 2018;3:34-43.
• İzgi C. Ethical perspectives on elderly privacy: an evaluation on nursing home residents and staff. Dissertation, Ankara Üniversitesi, 2009.
• Avaner E. What is privacy? how is the visibility of privacy from the health services window? Turkish Journal of Bioethics. 2018;5(3):110-116.
• Özturk H, Bahçecik N, Özçelik KS. The development of the patient privacy scale in nursing. Nursing Ethics. 2014;21(7):812-828.
• Özata M, Özer K. The evaluation of patient confidentiality implementations in the hospitals in the context of quality standards of the hospitals: the case of Konya. J Soc Sci Stud. 2016;45:11-33.
• Öztürk D, Eyüboğlu G, Göçmen Baykara Z. Mahremiyet Bilinci Ölçeği: Türkçe geçerlilik ve güvenirlilik çalışması. 2019;27(1).
• Joung M, Jun S, Ha S. Comparative study of patients and nurses in the perception and performance to the emergency room nurses' behavior for protecting patient privacy. Global Health & Nursing. 2014;4(2):68-77.
• Lee MY, Park YI. A study of the nurse’s perception and performance of protecting patient privacy. J Korean Clin Nurs Res. 2005;11:7-20.
• Akyüz E, Erdemir F. Surgical patients’ and nurses’ opinions and expectations about privacy in care. Nursing ethics. 2013;20(6):660-671.
• Karakoç H, Özerdoğan, N. Situation to protect individual privacy of health workers in obstetrics and gynecology. Dissertation, Osmangazi University, 2019.
• Değirmen N, Şaylıgil Ö. Body privacy in gynecology obstetrics. Acta Bioethica. 2020;26(2):225-235.
• Büyüköztürk S, Şekercioğlu G, Çokluk Ö. Multivariate statistics for social sciences: SPSS and LISREL applications. Pegem; 2018.
• Akyüz E. The opinions of patients and their nurses about the effects on privacy of the nursing care practices in patients having surgery. Dissertation, Baskent University, 2008.
• Alan S, Erbay H. Patient privacy and confidentiality in the ambulance services from the perspective of medical ethics. The Journal of Academic Emergency Medicine. 2011;33(8):33-39.
• Üstün Ç, Sırma Ö. Etik ve hukuki açıdan hasta hakları. Fasikül Hukuk Dergisi. 2014;6(53):17-27.
• Nayeri ND, Aghajani M. Patients’ privacy and satisfaction in the emergency department: a descriptive analytical study. Nursing Ethics. 2010;17(2):167-177.
• Zabihzadeh A, Mazaheri MA, Hatami J, Nikfarjam MR, Panaghi L, Davoodi T. Cultural differences in conceptual representation of "privacy": a comparison between Iran and the United States. J Soc Psychol. 2019;159(4):357-370.
• Moore W, Frye S. Review of HIPAA, part 1: history, protected health ınformation, and privacy and security rules. J Nucl Med Technol. 2019;47(4):269-272.
• Kim JW, Jang B, Yoo H. Privacy-preserving aggregation of personal health data streams. PloS one. 2018;13(11):1-15.
• Karadaş A, Yıldırım A. Nurse managers’ perceived sources of power: a scale development study. Journal of Health and Nursing Management. 2019;6(1):1-10.
• Yurdugül H. Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında kapsam geçerliği için kapsam geçerlik indekslerinin kullanılması. XIV Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi. 2005;1:771-774.
• Karakoç FY, Dönmez L. Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında temel ilkeler. Tıp Eğitimi Dünyası. 2014;13(40):39-49. Alpar R. Applied statistics and validity-reliability with examples from sports, health and educational sciences. Ankara: Detay Publishing. 2010:350.
• DeVellis RF. Ölçek geliştirme kuram ve uygulamalar (3. baskı). T Totan, Çev Ed) Ankara: Nobel Akademi Yayınları. 2014.
• Erkuş A. Measurement and Scale Development in Psychology-1: Basic Concepts and Operations. 4th edition Ankara: Pegem Academy Publishing. 2019.
• Özdemir Z. Sağlık bilimlerinde likert tipi tutum ölçeği geliştirme. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Dergisi. 2018;5(1):60-68.
• Esin M. Data collection methods and tools & reliability and validity of data collection tools. Research Process in Nursing, Application and Critical İstanbul, Turkey: Nobel Medicine Book Houses. 2014:193-233.
• Yeşilyurt S, Çapraz C. A road map for the content validity used in scale development studies. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2018;20(1):251-264.
• Çakmur H. Araştırmalarda ölçme-güvenilirlik-geçerlilik. TAF Preventive Medicine Bulletin. 2012;11(3):339-344. Büyüköztürk, Ş. Data Analysis Handbook for Social Sciences. 25th ed Ankara: Pegem Academy. 2019.
• Çapık C. Use of confirmatory factor analysis in validity and reliability studies. Journal of Anatolia Nursing and Health Sciences. 2014;17(3):196-205.
• Yaşlıoğlu M. Factor analysis and validity in social sciences: Application of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Istanbul University Journal of the School of Business. 2017;46(Special issue):74-85.
• Seçer İ. Practical data analysis with SPSS and LISREL. Ankara: Ani Publishing. 2017.
• Tavsancil E. Measurement of Attitudes and Data Analysis with SPSS. 6th ed Ankara: Nobel Publishing. 2019.
• Bekmezci H, Özkan H, Koç Ö. Evaluating the Privacy Perceived by mothers in the labor. Turkiye Klinikleri J Health Sci. 2016:1(2);104-110.