Cited by 58Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Education and Validation

Development and initial validation of the Influences on Patient Safety Behaviours Questionnaire

Open access
Taylor, Natalie, Parveen, Sahdia, Robins, Victoria, Slater, Beverley, Lawton, Rebecca·2013·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Understanding the factors that make it more or less likely that healthcare practitioners (HCPs) will perform certain patient safety behaviors is important in developing effective intervention strategies. A questionnaire to identify determinants of HCP patient safety behaviors does not currently exist. This study reports the development and initial validation of the Influences on Patient Safety Behaviors Questionnaire (IPSBQ) based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. METHODS: Two hundred and thirty-three HCPs from three acute National Health Service Hospital Trusts in the United Kingdom completed the 34-item measure focusing on one specific patient safety behavior (using pH as the first line method for checking the position of a nasogastric tube). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was undertaken to generate the model of best fit. RESULTS: The final questionnaire consisted of 11 factors and 23 items, and CFA produced a reasonable fit: χ² (175) = 345.7, p < 0.001; CMIN/DF = 1.98; GFI = 0.90 and RMSEA = 0.06, as well as adequate levels of discriminant validity, and internal consistency (r = 0.21 to 0.64). CONCLUSIONS: A reliable and valid theoretically underpinned measure of determinants of HCP patient safety behavior has been developed. The criterion validity of the measure is still unknown and further work is necessary to confirm the reliability and validity of this measure for other patient safety behaviors.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1748-5908-8-81

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Taylor, N., Parveen, S., Robins, V., Slater, B., & Lawton, R.
Affiliations
  • Bradford Royal Infirmary (GB)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
Corresponding author
Taylor, Natalie
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2013-07-29
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
81-81
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2062102458
Cited by
58
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2
FWCI
5.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bradford Scholars (University of Bradford) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
patient safety behavior, Theoretical Domains Framework, healthcare practitioners, pH measurement, questionnaire development, scale validation, behaviour change interventions
MeSH terms
Adult, Clinical Competence, Factor Analysis, Statistical, United Kingdom, Hospitals, Public, Humans, Medical Staff, Hospital, Surveys and Questionnaires, Safety Management, Risk Reduction Behavior, Young Adult, Patient Safety

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review