Cultural competence of healthcare providers: A systematic review of assessment instruments

研究成果: Review article

9 引文 (Scopus)

摘要

Background: Few articles in the literature identify and describe the instruments that are regularly used by scholars to measure cultural competence in healthcare providers. Purpose: This study reviews the psychometric properties of the several instruments that are used regularly to assess the cultural competence of healthcare providers. Methods: Researchers conducted a systematic review of the relevant articles that were published between 1983 and 2013 and listed on academic and government Web sites or on one or more of the following databases: CINAHL, MEDLINE, ERIC, PsycINFO, Psyc ARTICLES, PubMed, Cochrane, Pro Quest, Google Scholar, CNKI (China), and the National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (Taiwan). Results: This study included 57 articles. Ten instruments from these articles were identified and analyzed. These instruments included five that were presented in English and five that were presented in Chinese. All were self-administered and based on respondent perceptions. Five of the 10 instruments were designed to measure cultural competence, two were designed to measure cultural sensitivity, two were designed to measure transcultural self-efficacy, and one was designed to measure cultural awareness. The six cultural dimensions addressed by these instruments were attitudes, knowledge, skills, behaviors, desires, and encounters. An expert panel validated the content of the 10 instruments. The subscales explained 33%Y90% of the variance in scores for eight of the instruments. The reliability of the 10 instruments was estimated based on the internal consistency, which ranged from.57 to.97. Conclusions: This systematic review may assist researchers to choose appropriate instruments to assess the cultural competence of healthcare providers. The findings of this review indicate that no single instrument is adequate to evaluate cultural competence in all contexts.

原文English
頁(從 - 到)174-186
頁數13
期刊Journal of Nursing Research
25
發行號3
DOIs
出版狀態Published - 2017 一月 1

指紋

Cultural Competency
Health Personnel
Research Personnel
Digital Libraries
Self Efficacy
Taiwan
Psychometrics
PubMed
MEDLINE
China
Databases

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Nursing(all)

引用此文

@article{6452fbf957f14451bee06a554aa6ca15,
title = "Cultural competence of healthcare providers: A systematic review of assessment instruments",
abstract = "Background: Few articles in the literature identify and describe the instruments that are regularly used by scholars to measure cultural competence in healthcare providers. Purpose: This study reviews the psychometric properties of the several instruments that are used regularly to assess the cultural competence of healthcare providers. Methods: Researchers conducted a systematic review of the relevant articles that were published between 1983 and 2013 and listed on academic and government Web sites or on one or more of the following databases: CINAHL, MEDLINE, ERIC, PsycINFO, Psyc ARTICLES, PubMed, Cochrane, Pro Quest, Google Scholar, CNKI (China), and the National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (Taiwan). Results: This study included 57 articles. Ten instruments from these articles were identified and analyzed. These instruments included five that were presented in English and five that were presented in Chinese. All were self-administered and based on respondent perceptions. Five of the 10 instruments were designed to measure cultural competence, two were designed to measure cultural sensitivity, two were designed to measure transcultural self-efficacy, and one was designed to measure cultural awareness. The six cultural dimensions addressed by these instruments were attitudes, knowledge, skills, behaviors, desires, and encounters. An expert panel validated the content of the 10 instruments. The subscales explained 33{\%}Y90{\%} of the variance in scores for eight of the instruments. The reliability of the 10 instruments was estimated based on the internal consistency, which ranged from.57 to.97. Conclusions: This systematic review may assist researchers to choose appropriate instruments to assess the cultural competence of healthcare providers. The findings of this review indicate that no single instrument is adequate to evaluate cultural competence in all contexts.",
author = "Lin, {Chia Jung} and Lee, {Chia Kuei} and Huang, {Mei Chih}",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/jnr.0000000000000153",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "174--186",
journal = "The journal of nursing research : JNR",
issn = "1682-3141",
publisher = "Taiwan Nurses Association",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cultural competence of healthcare providers

T2 - A systematic review of assessment instruments

AU - Lin, Chia Jung

AU - Lee, Chia Kuei

AU - Huang, Mei Chih

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - Background: Few articles in the literature identify and describe the instruments that are regularly used by scholars to measure cultural competence in healthcare providers. Purpose: This study reviews the psychometric properties of the several instruments that are used regularly to assess the cultural competence of healthcare providers. Methods: Researchers conducted a systematic review of the relevant articles that were published between 1983 and 2013 and listed on academic and government Web sites or on one or more of the following databases: CINAHL, MEDLINE, ERIC, PsycINFO, Psyc ARTICLES, PubMed, Cochrane, Pro Quest, Google Scholar, CNKI (China), and the National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (Taiwan). Results: This study included 57 articles. Ten instruments from these articles were identified and analyzed. These instruments included five that were presented in English and five that were presented in Chinese. All were self-administered and based on respondent perceptions. Five of the 10 instruments were designed to measure cultural competence, two were designed to measure cultural sensitivity, two were designed to measure transcultural self-efficacy, and one was designed to measure cultural awareness. The six cultural dimensions addressed by these instruments were attitudes, knowledge, skills, behaviors, desires, and encounters. An expert panel validated the content of the 10 instruments. The subscales explained 33%Y90% of the variance in scores for eight of the instruments. The reliability of the 10 instruments was estimated based on the internal consistency, which ranged from.57 to.97. Conclusions: This systematic review may assist researchers to choose appropriate instruments to assess the cultural competence of healthcare providers. The findings of this review indicate that no single instrument is adequate to evaluate cultural competence in all contexts.

AB - Background: Few articles in the literature identify and describe the instruments that are regularly used by scholars to measure cultural competence in healthcare providers. Purpose: This study reviews the psychometric properties of the several instruments that are used regularly to assess the cultural competence of healthcare providers. Methods: Researchers conducted a systematic review of the relevant articles that were published between 1983 and 2013 and listed on academic and government Web sites or on one or more of the following databases: CINAHL, MEDLINE, ERIC, PsycINFO, Psyc ARTICLES, PubMed, Cochrane, Pro Quest, Google Scholar, CNKI (China), and the National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (Taiwan). Results: This study included 57 articles. Ten instruments from these articles were identified and analyzed. These instruments included five that were presented in English and five that were presented in Chinese. All were self-administered and based on respondent perceptions. Five of the 10 instruments were designed to measure cultural competence, two were designed to measure cultural sensitivity, two were designed to measure transcultural self-efficacy, and one was designed to measure cultural awareness. The six cultural dimensions addressed by these instruments were attitudes, knowledge, skills, behaviors, desires, and encounters. An expert panel validated the content of the 10 instruments. The subscales explained 33%Y90% of the variance in scores for eight of the instruments. The reliability of the 10 instruments was estimated based on the internal consistency, which ranged from.57 to.97. Conclusions: This systematic review may assist researchers to choose appropriate instruments to assess the cultural competence of healthcare providers. The findings of this review indicate that no single instrument is adequate to evaluate cultural competence in all contexts.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85020308499&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85020308499&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/jnr.0000000000000153

DO - 10.1097/jnr.0000000000000153

M3 - Review article

C2 - 28481813

AN - SCOPUS:85020308499

VL - 25

SP - 174

EP - 186

JO - The journal of nursing research : JNR

JF - The journal of nursing research : JNR

SN - 1682-3141

IS - 3

ER -