ADAPTATION OF WAKE FOREST PHYSICIAN TRUST SCALE TO TURKISH: A VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY STUDY

Öz

The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Wake Forest Physician Trust Scale and to analyze its Turkish validity and reliability. The sample group, selected by simple random sampling method, consists of 753 patients who applied to the outpatient clinics of three hospitals in Sivas city center. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were applied for construct validity. For reliability, Cronbach α coefficient was calculated and analyzed. EFA revealed that the measurement structure of the scale explained 69.144% of the variance. The scale consists of 7 items and one dimension. The validity of this scale was confirmed by applying CFA. Cronbach's α coefficient for the WFPTS was found to be 0.92. The Turkish version of the WFPTS has a high level of validity and reliability. Trust in the patient-physician relationship is one of the important factors determining the quality of patient care. There is no scale developed to measure patients' trust in physicians in Turkish. This scale will be useful to measure trust in the patient-physician relationship in Turkish culture.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Wake Forest Physician Trust Scale
• Patient-Physician Relationship
• Trust
• Validity and Reliability

WAKE FOREST HEKİM GÜVEN ÖLÇEĞİ'NİN TÜRKÇE'YE UYARLANMASI: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı Wake Forest Hekim Güven Ölçeği'nin psikometrik özelliklerini incelemek, Türkçe geçerlilik ve güvenilirliğini analiz etmektir. Basit tesadüfi örnekleme yöntemi ile seçilen örneklem grubu, Sivas il merkezindeki üç hastanenin polikliniklerine başvuran 753 hastadan oluşmaktadır. Yapı geçerliliği için açımlayıcı faktör analizi (AFA) ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) uygulanmıştır. Güvenilirlik için Cronbach α katsayısı hesaplanmış ve analiz edilmiştir. AFA, ölçeğin ölçüm yapısının varyansın %69,144'ünü açıkladığını ortaya koymuştur. Ölçek 7 madde ve bir boyuttan oluşmaktadır. Bu ölçeğin geçerliliği DFA uygulanarak doğrulanmıştır. WFPTS için Cronbach's α katsayısı 0,92 olarak bulunmuştur. WFPTS'nin Türkçe versiyonu yüksek düzeyde geçerlilik ve güvenilirliğe sahiptir. Hasta-hekim ilişkisinde güven, hasta bakımının kalitesini belirleyen önemli faktörlerden biridir. Türkçe'de hastaların hekimlere olan güvenini ölçmek için geliştirilmiş bir ölçek bulunmamaktadır. Bu ölçek Türk kültüründe hasta-hekim ilişkisinde güveni ölçmek için faydalı olacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Wake Forest Hekim Güven Ölçeği
• Hasta-Hekim İlişkisi
• Güven
• Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirlik

Kaynakça

1. Gülcemal E, Keklik B. An investigation on factors affecting the confidence of patients to physicians: a research in Isparta. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Social Sciences Institute 2016; 8: 64-87. https://doi.org/10.20875/sb.66346. (in Turkish)
2. Segers S, Mertes H. The curious case of “trust” in the light of changing doctor–patient relationships. Bioethics 2022. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.13064.
3. Wu Q, Jin Z, Wang P. The Relationship Between the Physician-Patient Relationship, Physician Empathy, and Patient Trust. J Gen Intern Med. . 2022; 37: 1388-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-07008-9.
4. Alkan A, Özyıldız KH, Güder M, Balcı B. A field study on the relationship between the use of media tools and trust to physicians: the case of Isparta province. Turkiye Klinikleri J Health Sci 2022; 7: 233-41. https://doi.org/10.5336/healthsci.2021-81511. (in Turkish)
5. Thom DH, Hall MA, Pawlson LG. Measuring patients' trust in physicians when assessing quality of care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2004; 23: 124-32. https://doi.org/10.1377/hltaff.23.4.124.
6. Dinççag A. Communication with the patient, İstanbul: Nobel Publishing; 1999. (in Turkish).
7. Çobanoğlu N. Theoretical and applied medical ethics, 1th ed. Ankara: Eflatun Publishing; 2009. (in Turkish).
8. Rudawska, I., and Krot, K. “The relationship between doctors' communication and trust in doctor: some behavioural data,” in problems, methods and tools in experimental and behavioral economics. CMEE 2017.

9. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics, eds K. Nermend and M. Latuszynska (Cham: Springer) 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99187-0-14.
10. Khullar D, Prasad K, Neprash H, Poplau S, Brown RL, Williams ES, Audi C, Linzer M. Factors associated with patient trust in their clinicians: results from the healthy work place study. hcmrjournal 2022; 47: 289-96. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0000000000000336.
11. Safran DG, Montgomery JE, Chang H. Switching doctors: predictors of voluntary disenrollment from a primary physician’s practice. J Fam Pract 2001; 50: 130-36. PMID: 11219560.
12. Gordon T, Edwards WS. Doctor-Patient Cooperation, İstanbul: Sistem Publishing; 1997. (Translated in Turkish by Emel Aksay)
13. Boubshait LA, AlShamlan NA, AlShammari RZ, Alamrah SA, Fallatah BA, Abdel Wahab MM, Alreedy AH. Patient trust in primary care physicians: a mixed methods study of persons with diabetes at university- based clinics in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia. Patient Prefer Adherence 2022; 16: 3241-55. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S377500.
14. Richmond J, Boynton MH, Ozawa S, Muessig KE, Cykert S, Ribisl KM. Development and validation of the trust in my doctor, trust in doctors in general, and trust in the health care team scales. Soc Sci Med 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114827.
15. Han Y, Lie RK, Li Z, Guo R. Trust in the Doctor–Patient Relationship in Chinese Public Hospitals: Evidence for Hope. Patient Prefer Adherence 2022; 16: 647-57. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S352636
16. Deniz S, Çimen M. A research on determining the level of trust in physicians. Celal Bayar University Health Sciences Institute Journal 2020; 8: 10-6. https://doi.org/10.34087/cbusbed.656592. (in Turkish)
17. Koca GŞ, Erigüç G. A scale development study to measure the trust communication in the patient-physicians relationship from a patient perspective. CEEOL 2021; 186-202- Special issue https://doi.org/10.18026/cbayarsos.689732. (in Turkish)
18. Şengül H, Bulut A. Turkish Validity and Reliability Study of Medical Mistrust Scale and Physician Trust Scale. Socıal Sciences Studies Journal (SSSJournal) 2020. https://doi.org/10.26449/sssj.2323. (in Turkish)
19. Petrocchi S, Labrie NH, Schulz PJ. Measurement invariance of the short wake forest physician trust scale and of the health empowerment scale in German and French women. J Health Psychol 2020; 25: 558-69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105317719582.
20. Heybet M, Tekin O, Kahveci R, Heybet ER, Yarloğlueş G, Şencan İ, et al. Development of a scale for measuring physician perception: physician related health care perception scale. Konuralp Medical Journal 2016; 8:104-13. https://doi.org/10.18521/ktd.24199. (in Turkish)
21. Dong E, Liang Y, Liu W, Du X, Bao Y, Du Z, Ma J. Construction and validation of a preliminary Chinese version of the Wake Forest physician trust scale. Med Sci Monit 2014; 20:11-42. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.889992.
22. Bachinger SM, Kolk AM, Smets EM. Patients’ trust in their physician—psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the “Wake Forest Physician Trust Scale”. Patient Educ Couns 2009; 76: 126-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2008.11.020.
23. Lee YY, Lin JL. The effects of trust in physician on self-efficacy, adherence and diabetes outcomes. Soc Sci Med. 2009; 68:1060-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.12.033.
24. Hall MA, Zheng B, Dugan E, Camacho F, Kidd KE, Mishra A, Balkrishnan R. Measuring patients’ trust in their primary care providers. Med Care Res Rev 2002; 59: 293-318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558702059003004.
25. Pearson SD, Raeke LH. Patients' trust in physicians: many theories, few measures, and little data. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15: 509-13. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.11002.x.
26. Amarandei RS, Mahut S, Sixou P, Jami A. The patient, the doctor and trust: translation, cultural adaptation and validation of Wake Forest Trust Scale. Exercer-La Revue Francophone De Medecine Generale 2021; 176:359-64. https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000706515700006
27. Meydan CM, Şeşen H. Structural equation modeling AMOS applications. 2th ed. Ankara: Detay Publishing; 2015.
28. Kartal M, Bardakçı S. Reliability and validity analysis with SPSS and AMOS applied examples, Ankara: Akademisyen Publishing; 2018. (in Turkish)
29. Hair JF, Black WC, Anderson RE, Babin BJ. Multivariate data analysis, Seventh Edition; New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 2009.
30. Büyüköztürk Ş. Manual of data analysis for social sciences, 30th ed. Ankara: Pegem Publishing ; 2010. (in Turkish)
31. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equations models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) 1981; 18: 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312.