DOI 10.1007/s40368-023-00851-w
Development and validation of a questionnaire to assess commonality knowledge of traumatic dental injuries and management of emergencies.
Аннотация
BACKGROUND
Dental trauma represents a significant public health problem, causing a burden for both individuals and society. The aim of this study is to systematically develop and validate a questionnaire on 'traumatic dental injuries and management of emergencies' (TIME) for assessing the knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) for a commonality.
METHODS
The scale development phases included conceptual framework, systematic development of an item pool, refinement of the item pool by Focus-group discussion (n = 23), validity-testing using Content Validity Index (n = 5), translation and back-translation, Cognitive interviewing (n = 30,45), and reliability testing (n = 40). The conceptual framework was built based on six broad constructs, such as broken teeth, knocked-out (avulsion) teeth, pushed/moved-in and loosened teeth (luxation injuries), soft tissue injuries, follow-up and management, and prevention and protection.
RESULTS
Reviews of existing questionnaires significantly helped to generate an initial pool of 68 items (refined to 51 items). Lawshe's content validity was 0.92. High test-retest reliability was demonstrated (kappa value = 0.98). The questionnaire showed a high level of reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.86) with great internal consistency.
CONCLUSION
TIME is the first validated scale for recording knowledge, attitude and practices on traumatic dental injuries and management of emergencies for non-dental professionals. The 51-tem tool will allow dentists to evaluate KAP of commonality. KAP measured across the globe would have a significant impact on planning awareness programs by dentists and dental associations.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.