Author
Listed:
- Jonathan Faës
(UCL - Université catholique de Lille, UPHF - Université Polytechnique Hauts-de-France, ETHICS EA 7446 - Experience ; Technology & Human Interactions ; Care & Society : - ICL - Institut Catholique de Lille - UCL - Université catholique de Lille, CEM - Centre d’Ethique Médicale - ETHICS EA 7446 - Experience ; Technology & Human Interactions ; Care & Society : - ICL - Institut Catholique de Lille - UCL - Université catholique de Lille, UCL FMMS - Université catholique de Lille - Faculté de médecine, de maïeutique et sciences de la santé - ICL - Institut Catholique de Lille - UCL - Université catholique de Lille)
- Grégory Aiguier
(CEM - Centre d’Ethique Médicale - ETHICS EA 7446 - Experience ; Technology & Human Interactions ; Care & Society : - ICL - Institut Catholique de Lille - UCL - Université catholique de Lille)
Abstract
Introduction: The interprofessional community of health practice represents a major challenge in addressing complex healthcare situations. The scales used to understand its construction and evolution do not always capture its specificities. Based on this observation, and to facilitate the understanding of the construction of the IHPSC and its evolution among students or healthcare professionals (in training or in the field), the development of an IHPSC scale appears fundamental. Method: We have used the paradigm of Churchill (1979) for the construction and validation of the scale. The scale (IHPSC) includes five dimensions: objectives (OB), norms (NO), social link (LS), motivation (MO), and empowerment (PA). The steps leading to the purification and validation of the measuring instrument included reviews by experts, successive principal component analyses (PCA), and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). The construction of the scale was based on two populations: healthcare workers and students. For healthcare workers, we distributed the questionnaire online and received 1200 answers, of which 884 were usable. For students, we distributed the questionnaire to 328 students participating in an "Interprofessionalism and Palliative Care" training day. Out of these, 266 questionnaires were usable. Results: Following the various steps, the finalized scale consists of five dimensions and 20 questions. The scale accurately captures information with an explained variance of 66.5% (OB: 15.2%, NO: 14.4%, LS: 14.2%, MO: 12.1%, PA: 10.6%). The main indices of model fit and reliability are: χ2/df = 1.44, GFI = 0.990, AGFI = 0.935, RMSEA = 0.054, Cronbach's alpha at 0.91, and factorial saturation (min: 0.57, max: 0.88). Conclusions: The scale appears stable and demonstrates reproducibility. The initial results allow a use among healthcare professionals or students. This scale will enable the assessment of the construction and evolution of an interprofessional community of health practice. It will be possible to target the dimensions that need attention to contribute to the development of the CIPS Perspectives: The CIPS scale remains focused on professional practice. There is a need to consider the inclusion of the patient in this community, identify its influence on professionalization and professional identity, and evolve it towards a scale measuring a care community. Reference 1. Aiguier G., Faës J. La collaboration interprofessionnelle : un catalyseur de motivation pour les étudiants en santé ? Pédagogie Médicale 2021;22(Suppl.1):S86-S87. https://doi.org/10.1051/ pmed/2021017
Suggested Citation
Jonathan Faës & Grégory Aiguier, 2023.
"Scale measuring the construction of an interprofessional health practice community (CIPS) [Échelle mesurant la construction d’une communauté interprofessionnelle de pratique en santé (CIPS)],"
Post-Print
hal-04578471, HAL.
Handle:
RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04578471
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://univ-catholille.hal.science/hal-04578471
Download full text from publisher
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
options:
1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's
web page
whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a
search for a similarly titled item that would be
available.
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:hal:journl:hal-04578471. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.