Volume 16, Issue 3 (June 2022)
Qom Univ Med Sci J 2022, 16(3): 224-237 |
Back to browse issues page
Mona Khalednejad1 
, Leili Salehi * 2, Sara Pashang1 , Abbas Moghimbeig3 , Atefeh Nezhadmohamad Nameghi1
, Leili Salehi * 2, Sara Pashang1 , Abbas Moghimbeig3 , Atefeh Nezhadmohamad Nameghi1
1- Department of Psychology, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran.
2- Department of Health Promotion and Education, Research Center for Health, Safety and Environment, School of Health, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran. ,leilisalehi88@gmail.com
3- Department of Statistics and Epidemiology, Faculty of Health, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran.
2- Department of Health Promotion and Education, Research Center for Health, Safety and Environment, School of Health, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran. ,
3- Department of Statistics and Epidemiology, Faculty of Health, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran.
Abstract: (711 Views)
Background and Objectives: The cervical cancer screening reduces the incidence and mortality rates of women with cervical cancer. Emotional support is one of factors affecting this screening. This study aims to design an emotional support scale for cervical cancer screening and evaluate its psychometric properties in Iranian women.
Methods: In this methodological study, after reviewing the literature and conducting interviews with 20 women of reproductive age, 33 items were first formulated, which was later reduced to 9 items using the Delphi method. During the face and content validity assessment of the initial version, the number of items was reduced to 8. The construct validity was performed with the participation of 630 women with a mean age of 42.12±9.78 years, who were selected by a convenience sampling method. To analyze the data, SPSS version 24 and AMOS version 24 were used.
Results: The mean content validity index, intracluster correlation coefficient, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient were obtained 0.92, 0.93 and 0.79, respectively, indicating the acceptable validity and reliability of the scale. By the exploratory factor analysis, two factors of positive effects and negative effects of emotional support for cervical cancer screening were identified, which together explained 61.86% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the two-factor solution of the designed scale.
Conclusion: The designed emotional support scale has good psychometric properties. It can be used for assessing the emotional support for cervical cancer screening in women of reproductive age.
Methods: In this methodological study, after reviewing the literature and conducting interviews with 20 women of reproductive age, 33 items were first formulated, which was later reduced to 9 items using the Delphi method. During the face and content validity assessment of the initial version, the number of items was reduced to 8. The construct validity was performed with the participation of 630 women with a mean age of 42.12±9.78 years, who were selected by a convenience sampling method. To analyze the data, SPSS version 24 and AMOS version 24 were used.
Results: The mean content validity index, intracluster correlation coefficient, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient were obtained 0.92, 0.93 and 0.79, respectively, indicating the acceptable validity and reliability of the scale. By the exploratory factor analysis, two factors of positive effects and negative effects of emotional support for cervical cancer screening were identified, which together explained 61.86% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the two-factor solution of the designed scale.
Conclusion: The designed emotional support scale has good psychometric properties. It can be used for assessing the emotional support for cervical cancer screening in women of reproductive age.
Type of Study: Original Article |
Subject:
آموزش بهداشت
Received: 2022/03/23 | Accepted: 2022/06/18 | Published: 2023/01/1
Received: 2022/03/23 | Accepted: 2022/06/18 | Published: 2023/01/1
References
1. Vafaeinezhad Z, Kazemi Z, Mirmoeini M, Piroti H, Sadeghian E, Mohammad Ali-Vajari M, et al. [Trends in cervical cancer incidence in Iran according to national cancer registry (Persian)]. J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci. 2018; 10; 28:108-14. [link]
2. Sharifi M, Mohammadi Z, Makvandi Z, Rostami P, Moradi A. [Assessment of cervical Cancer Screening and its Barriers in 18-50-Year-Old Women Referring to Asad Abad Comprehensive Health Centers (Persian)]. Pajouhan Sci J. 2018; 16:2:35-45. [DOI:10.21859/psj.16.2.35] [DOI:10.21859/psj.16.2.35]
3. Ebu NI, Mupepi SC, Siakwa MP, Sampselle CM. Knowledge, practice, and barriers toward cervical cancer screening in Elmina, Southern Ghana. Int. J. Women's Health. 2015; 7:31-9.[DOI:10.2147/IJWH.S71797] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.2147/IJWH.S71797]
4. Ashtarian H, Mirzabeigi E, Mahmoodi E, Khezeli M. Knowledge about cervical cancer and pap smear and the factors influencing the pap test screening among women. Int J Community Based Nurs Midwifery. 2017; 5: 188-95. [PMID] [PMCID]
5. Izadirad H, Nohtani V, Aliahmadi M, Pourhaji F, Niknami SH. [The effect of educational intervention based on the integrated model of health belief with the structure of social support on self-care behaviors during pregnancy (Persian)]. Iran J Health Edu Health Promot. 2021; 8(4):324-35. [DOI:10.29252/ijhehp.8.4.324] [DOI:10.29252/ijhehp.8.4.324]
6. Torkmandi H, Heidaranlu E, Firouzbakht M, Tahmasbi B, Ziyari M, Yaghoobzadeh A, et al. [Mohammadinezhad M The relationship between social support and quality of life in Iranian clients with Cancer Persian (Persian)]. IJCA. 2020; 1(2):9-15. [DOI:10.29252/ijca.1.2.9] [DOI:10.29252/ijca.1.2.9]
7. Gamarra CJ, Paz EP, Griep RH. Social support and cervical and breast cancer screening in Argentinean women from a rural population. Public Health Nursing. 2009; 26:269-76. link [DOI:10.1111/j.1525-1446.2009.00779.x] [PMID] [DOI:10.1111/j.1525-1446.2009.00779.x]
8. Cheraghi M, DavariDolatabadi E. [Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Heart Failure Patients' Perceived Social Support Inventory (Persian)]. Journal of Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences (JRUM). 2016; 15(3):195-208. [Link]
9. Schwarzer R, Schulz U. Berlin Social Support Scales (BSSS). Measurement Instrument Database for the Social Science. Diagnostica.2013; 49, 73-82. [Link] [DOI:10.1026//0012-1924.49.2.73]
10. Broadhead WE, Gehlbach SH, De Gruy FV, Kaplan BH. The Duke-UNC Functional Social Support Questionnaire: Measurement of social support in family medicine patients. Med Care. 1988; 27(6):709-23. [DOI:10.1097/00005650-198807000-00006] [PMID] [DOI:10.1097/00005650-198807000-00006]
11. Fryer CS, Seaman EL, Clark RS, Plano Clark VL. Mixed methods research in tobacco control with youth and young adults: A methodological review of current strategies. PLOS ONE. 2017; 12(8):e0183471. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0183471] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0183471]
12. Koenig HG, Westlund RE, George LK, Hughes DC, Blazer DG, Hybels C. Abbreviating the Duke Social Support Index for use in chronically ill elderly individuals. Psychosom. 1993; 34(1):61-9. [DOI:10.1016/S0033-3182(93)71928-3] [DOI:10.1016/S0033-3182(93)71928-3]
13. Besharat, M. [Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support: Questionnaire, Instruction and Scoring (Persian)]. J Dev Psychol. 2019; 15(59): 447-49. [Link]
14. Zimet G. Dahlem NW, Zimet, S G, Farley, GK. The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. J Pers Assessment. 1988; 52:30-41. [DOI:10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2] [DOI:10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2]
15. Vaux A, Phillips J, Holley L, Thompson B, Williams D, Stewart D. The Social Support Appraisals (SSA) scale: Studies of reliability and validity. American J Community Psychol. 1986; 14(2):195-19. [DOI:10.1007/BF00911821] [DOI:10.1007/BF00911821]
16. Helgeson VS, Cohen S, Schulz R, Yasko J. Group support interventions for people with cancer: Who benefits from what? Health Psychology. 2000; 19:(2)107-14. [DOI:10.1037/0278-6133.19.2.107] [PMID] [DOI:10.1037/0278-6133.19.2.107]
17. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research. 2005; 15(9): 1277-88. [DOI:10.1177/1049732305276687] [PMID] [DOI:10.1177/1049732305276687]
18. Azadeh M, Ramezani T, Taheri kharameh Z. [Investigating the Factors Affecting Protective Behaviors in the Workplace of Covid-19 Disease in Employees of Frequent Departments in Qom: Application of Protection Motivation Theory (Persian)]. ioh. 2020; 17(51):115-25. [Link]
19. Hung H, Altschuld JW, Lee YF. Methodological and conceptual issues confronting a cross-country Delphi study of educational program evaluation. Eval Program Plann. 2008; 31(2):191-98. [DOI:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.02.005] [PMID] [DOI:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.02.005]
20. Heravi M, Hatami M, Ahadi H. Designing a Happiness Questionnaire for the Elderly in Iran and Determining Its Psychometric Properties. Salmand: Iran J Ageing. 2020; 15(3):380-95. [DOI:10.32598/sija.15.3.2749.1]
21. Yusoff MSB, Arifin WN, Hadie SNH. ABC of Questionnaire Development and Validation for Survey Research. Edu Med J .2021; 13(1):97-08. [DOI:10.21315/eimj2021.13.1.10] [DOI:10.21315/eimj2021.13.1.10]
22. Northouse LL, Swain MA. Adjustment of patients and husbands to the initial impact of breast cancer. Nurs Res. 1987; 36(4): 221-5. [DOI:10.1097/00006199-198707000-00009] [DOI:10.1097/00006199-198707000-00009]
23. Khodapanahi MK, Asgari A, Sadeghpoor B, Ketabi J. [Preparing and investigating the reliability and validation of the family social support questionnaire [FSSQ](Persian)]. J Fam Reasearch. 2009; 5(2):423-39. [link]
24. Fisher DA, Jeffreys A, Coffman CJ, Fasanella K. Barriers to full colon evaluation for a positive fecal occult blood test. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers. 2006; 15(6):1232-5. [DOI:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0916] [PMID] [DOI:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0916]
25. Khazaee pool M, Yargholi F, Jafari F, Ponnet K. Exploring Iranian women's perceptions and experiences regarding cervical cancer-preventive behaviors. BMC women Health. 2018; 18(1): 145. [DOI:10.1186/s12905-018-0635-8] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.1186/s12905-018-0635-8]
26. Bigatello LM, Amirfarzan H, Haghighi AK, Newhouse B, Del Rio JM, Allen K, Chang A, Schmidt U, Razavi M. Effects of routine monitoring of delirium in a surgical/trauma intensive care unit. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013; 74(3):876-83. [DOI:10.1097/TA.0b013e31827e1b69] [PMID] [DOI:10.1097/TA.0b013e31827e1b69]
27. Mortensen GL, Adeler AL. Qualitative study of women's anxiety and information needs after a diagnosis of cervical dysplasia. Journal of Public Health. 2010; 18:473-82. [DOI:10.1007/s10389-010-0330-1] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.1007/s10389-010-0330-1]
28. Weger Jr H, Castle Bell G, Minei EM, Robinson MC. The relative effectiveness of active listening in initial interactions. Int J Listening. 2014; 28(1):13-31. [DOI:10.1080/10904018.2013.813234] [DOI:10.1080/10904018.2013.813234]
29. Jahromi VK, Tabatabaee SS, Esmaeli Abadi Z. Active listening: The key of successful communication in hospital managers. Electron Physician. 2016; 8(3):2123-8. [DOI:10.19082/2123] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.19082/2123]
30. Farhadi A, Foroughan M, Mohammadi F, Rassouli M, Sadegh Moghadam L, Nazari S, et al. [Caregiving Appraisal in Family Caregivers of Older Adults (Persian)]. Salmand: Iran J Ageing. 2016; 11(1):8-19. [DOI:10.21859/sija-110108] [DOI:10.21859/sija-110108]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |