IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0164018.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Competent Are Healthcare Professionals in Working According to a Bio-Psycho-Social Model in Healthcare? The Current Status and Validation of a Scale

Author

Listed:
  • Dominique Van de Velde
  • Ank Eijkelkamp
  • Wim Peersman
  • Patricia De Vriendt

Abstract

Background: Over the past decades, there has been a paradigm shift from a purely biomedical towards a bio-psycho-social (BPS) conception of disability and illness, which has led to a change in contemporary healthcare. However, there seems to be a gap between the rhetoric and reality of working within a BPS model. It is not clear whether healthcare professionals show the necessary skills and competencies to act according to the BPS model. Objective: The aim of this study was (1) to develop a scale to monitor the BPS competencies of healthcare professionals, (2) to define its factor-structure, (3) to check internal consistency, (4) test-retest reliability and (5) feasibility. Design and Setting: Item derivation for the BPS scale was based on qualitative research with seven multidisciplinary focus groups (n = 58) of both patients and professionals. In a cross-sectional study design, 368 healthcare professionals completed the BPS scale through a digital platform. An exploratory factor analysis was performed to determine underlying dimensions. Statistical coherence was expressed in item-total correlations and in Cronbach’s α coefficient. An intra-class-correlation coefficient was used to rate the test-retest reliability. Results: The qualitative study revealed 45 items. The exploratory factor analysis showed five underlying dimensions labelled as: (1) networking, (2) using the expertise of the client, (3) assessment and reporting, (4) professional knowledge and skills and (5) using the environment. The results show a good to strong homogeneity (item-total ranged from 0.59 to 0.79) and a strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s α ranged from 0.75 to 0.82). ICC ranged between 0.82 and 0.93. Conclusion: The BPS scale appeared to be a valid and reliable measure to rate the BPS competencies of the healthcare professionals and offers opportunities for an improvement in the healthcare delivery. Further research is necessary to test the construct validity and to detect whether the scale is responsive and able to detect changes over time.

Suggested Citation

  • Dominique Van de Velde & Ank Eijkelkamp & Wim Peersman & Patricia De Vriendt, 2016. "How Competent Are Healthcare Professionals in Working According to a Bio-Psycho-Social Model in Healthcare? The Current Status and Validation of a Scale," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-19, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0164018
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0164018
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0164018&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0164018?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Patricia De Vriendt & Elise Cornelis & Valerie Desmet & Ruben Vanbosseghem & Dominique Van de Velde, 2018. "Quality in dementia care: A cross sectional study on the Bio-Psycho-Social competencies of health care professionals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Joy Van de Cauter & Hanna Van Schoorisse & Dominique Van de Velde & Joz Motmans & Lutgart Braeckman, 2021. "Return to work of transgender people: A systematic review through the blender of occupational health," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-43, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0164018. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.