↓ Skip to main content

Development and validation of a structured observation scale to measure responsiveness of physicians in rural Bangladesh

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Development and validation of a structured observation scale to measure responsiveness of physicians in rural Bangladesh
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2722-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Taufique Joarder, Ilias Mahmud, Malabika Sarker, Asha George, Krishna Dipankar Rao

Abstract

Responsiveness of physicians is the social actions that physicians do to meet the legitimate expectations of service seekers. Since there is no such scale, this study aimed at developing one for measuring responsiveness of physicians in rural Bangladesh, by structured observation method. Data were collected from Khulna division of Bangladesh, through structured observation of 393 patient-consultations with physicians. The structured observation tool consisted of 64 items, with four Likert type response categories, each anchored with a defined scenario. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by same three raters observing 30 consultations. Data were analyzed by exploratory factor analysis (EFA), followed by assessment of internal consistency by ordinal alpha coefficient, inter-rater reliability by intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), concurrent validity by correlating responsiveness score with waiting time, and known group validity by comparing public and private sector physicians. After removing items with more than 50% missing values, 45 items were considered for EFA. Parallel analysis suggested a 5-factor model. Nine items were removed from the list owing to < 0.50 communality, <0.32 loading in un-rotated matrix, and <0.30 on any factor in rotated matrix. Since 34 items (i.e., the number of remaining items after removing nine items by EFA) were loaded neatly under five factors, explained 61.38% of common variance, and demonstrated high internal consistency with coefficient of 0.91, this was adopted as the Responsiveness of Physicians Scale (ROP-Scale). The five factors were named as 1) Friendliness, 2) Respecting, 3) Informing and guiding, 4) Gaining trust, and 5) Financial sensitivity. Inter-rater reliability was high, with an ICC of 0.64 for individual rater's reliability and 0.84 for average reliability scores. Positive correlation with waiting time (0.51), and higher score of private sector by 0.18 point denote concurrent, and known group validity, respectively. The ROP-Scale consists of 34 items grouped under five factors. One can apply this with confidence in comparable settings, as this scale demonstrated high internal consistency and inter-rater reliability. More research is needed to test this scale in other settings and with other types of providers.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 7 39%
Student > Master 3 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 7 39%
Social Sciences 3 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Computer Science 1 6%
Other 3 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 January 2018.
All research outputs
#3,018,193
of 13,528,042 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,239
of 4,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,822
of 390,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#150
of 535 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,528,042 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,541 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 390,451 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 535 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.