4.1 Article

Construct Validation of the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care Measurement Tool in Dutch Primary Care for Older Adults

期刊

出版社

UBIQUITY PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.5334/ijic.6739

关键词

integrated care; measurement tool; elderly care; primary care; care networks; interprofessional collaboration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to assess the construct validity of the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care measurement tool (RMIC-MT) among healthcare professionals in an integrated primary elderly care setting in the Netherlands. The results showed that the RMIC-MT has the potential to be used for evaluating the implementation of integrated care initiatives in a primary care setting.
Introduction: Care integration in primary elderly care is suboptimal. Validated instruments are needed to enable the implementation of integrated primary care. We aimed to assess construct validity of the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care measurement tool (RMIC-MT) for healthcare professionals working in an integrated primary elderly care setting in the Netherlands. Methods: In a cross-sectional study, the RMIC-MT, a 36-item questionnaire covering all domains of the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care (RMIC), was sent out to local networks of primary elderly care professionals. Confirmatory factor analysis with maximum likelihood estimation was used for the validation of the factor structure of the RMIC-MT. Model fit was assessed by the chi-square test and fit indices. Results: The RMIC-MT was completed by 323 professionals, primarily general practitioners, community nurses, practice nurses, and case managers. Confirmatory factor analysis and corresponding fit indices showed moderate to good fit, thereby confirming a nine factor model with a total of 36 items. Conclusions: The RMIC-MT is promising for the primary elderly care setting in the Netherlands. It can be used for evaluating integrated care initiatives in a primary care setting, thereby contributing to implementation of integrated primary elderly care.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据