EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Development and psychometric testing of the clinical networks engagement tool

Jill M Norris, Kent G Hecker, Leora Rabatach, Tom W Noseworthy and Deborah E White

PLOS ONE, 2017, vol. 12, issue 3, 1-16

Abstract: Background: Clinical networks are being used widely to facilitate large system transformation in healthcare, by engagement of stakeholders throughout the health system. However, there are no available instruments that measure engagement in these networks. Methods: The study purpose was to develop and assess the measurement properties of a multiprofessional tool to measure engagement in clinical network initiatives. Based on components of the International Association of Public Participation Spectrum and expert panel review, we developed 40 items for testing. The draft instrument was distributed to 1,668 network stakeholders across different governance levels (leaders, members, support, frontline stakeholders) in 9 strategic clinical networks in Alberta (January to July 2014). With data from 424 completed surveys (25.4% response rate), descriptive statistics, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, Pearson correlations, linear regression, multivariate analysis, and Cronbach alpha were conducted to assess reliability and validity of the scores. Results: Sixteen items were retained in the instrument. Exploratory factor analysis indicated a four-factor solution and accounted for 85.7% of the total variance in engagement with clinical network initiatives: global engagement, inform (provided with information), involve (worked together to address concerns), and empower (given final decision-making authority). All subscales demonstrated acceptable reliability (Cronbach alpha 0.87 to 0.99). Both the confirmatory factor analysis and regression analysis confirmed that inform, involve, and empower were all significant predictors of global engagement, with involve as the strongest predictor. Leaders had higher mean scores than frontline stakeholders, while members and support staff did not differ in mean scores. Conclusions: This study provided foundational evidence for the use of this tool for assessing engagement in clinical networks. Further work is necessary to evaluate engagement in broader network functions and activities; to assess barriers and facilitators of engagement; and, to elucidate how the maturity of networks and other factors influence engagement.

Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0174056 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 74056&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0174056

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174056

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone (plosone@plos.org).

 
Page updated 2025-03-19
Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0174056