| Literature DB >> 35962357 |
Yuhan Zhao1, Yuanyuan Wang1, Ting Zhang2, Miaomiao Wang1, Xiaojun Ye3, Xintian Wang3, Hongwei Sun4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the present study, we attempted to develop and validate a participatory competency model for medical workers and then evaluate the current status of competency characteristics of Chinese medical workers.Entities:
Keywords: Competency model; Emergency medical team; Medical workers; Public health emergency
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35962357 PMCID: PMC9374485 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-022-08361-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.908
Fig. 1Flow chart of competency model development
Fig. 2Factor analysis of the scree plot
Results of factor anlaysis in the questionaire survey of the pilot study
| Question | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 | Factor 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| t 1 | 0.607 | ||||
| t 3 | 0.793 | ||||
| t 4 | 0.668 | ||||
| t 5 | 0.704 | ||||
| t 7 | 0.831 | ||||
| t 8 | 0.782 | ||||
| t 9 | 0.767 | ||||
| t 10 | 0.695 | ||||
| t 13 | 0.675 | ||||
| t 26 | 0.502 | ||||
| t 31 | 0.737 | ||||
| t 32 | 0.723 | ||||
| t 33 | 0.746 | ||||
| t 34 | 0.710 | ||||
| t 35 | 0.680 | ||||
| t 36 | 0.559 | ||||
| t 37 | 0.675 | ||||
| t 14 | 0.805 | ||||
| t 15 | 0.666 | ||||
| t 16 | 0.852 | ||||
| t 17 | 0.693 | ||||
| t 18 | 0.654 | ||||
| t 19 | 0.706 | ||||
| t 24 | 0.558 | ||||
| t 27 | 0.465 | ||||
| t 20 | 0.813 | ||||
| t 21 | 0.801 | ||||
| t 22 | 0.830 | ||||
| t 23 | 0.769 | ||||
| t 28 | 0.642 | ||||
| t 38 | 0.455 | ||||
| t 39 | 0.595 | ||||
| t 40 | 0.516 |
Basic information of 118 participators
| Characteristics | Participators ( | Percentage (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 75 | 63.6 |
| Female | 43 | 36.4 | |
| Age (year) | 21–30 | 14 | 11.9 |
| 31–40 | 71 | 60.2 | |
| 41–50 | 24 | 20.3 | |
| 51–60 | 9 | 7.6 | |
| Experience of emergency work (year) | 1–3 | 27 | 22.9 |
| 4–6 | 43 | 36.1 | |
| 7–9 | 21 | 17.8 | |
| 10–12 | 15 | 12.7 | |
| 13–15 | 5 | 4.2 | |
| ≥ 16 | 7 | 5.9 | |
| Professional titles | Senior | 10 | 8.5 |
| Associate senior | 27 | 22.8 | |
| Intermediate | 47 | 39.8 | |
| Junior | 33 | 27.9 | |
| Worker | 1 | 0.8 | |
| Emergency training (time) | 0 | 23 | 19.4 |
| 1 | 10 | 11.8 | |
| 2 | 17 | 14.4 | |
| 3 | 20 | 16.9 | |
| 4 | 13 | 11.0 | |
| 5 | 13 | 12.0 | |
| 6 | 7 | 5.9 | |
| 7 | 3 | 2.5 | |
| 8 | 1 | 0.9 | |
| 9 | 2 | 2.2 | |
| 10 | 8 | 7.0 | |
| 14 | 1 | 0.8 | |
| Regions | Shandong | 37 | 31.4 |
| Xinjiang | 32 | 27.1 | |
| Sichuan | 22 | 18.6 | |
| Shanghai | 27 | 22.8 |
Fig. 3The final version of competency model for medical workers
The basic information of 227 participators
| Variables | Count | Percentage (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 161 | 70.9 |
| Female | 66 | 29. 1 | |
| Age (year) | 21–30 | 23 | 10. 1 |
| 31–40 | 139 | 61.2 | |
| 41–50 | 48 | 21. 1 | |
| 51–60 | 17 | 7.5 | |
| Working experience (year) | 1–3 | 57 | 25. 1 |
| 4–6 | 71 | 31 3 | |
| 7–9 | 44 | 19.4 | |
| 10- 12 | 32 | 14. 1 | |
| 13- 15 | 9 | 4.0 | |
| ≥ 16 | 14 | 6.2 | |
| Professional titles | Senior | 20 | 8 8 |
| Associate senior | 52 | 22.9 | |
| Intermediate | 90 | 39.6 | |
| Junior | 63 | 27.8 | |
| Worker | 2 | 0.9 | |
| Emergency training (time) | 0 | 39 | 17 2 |
| 1 | 20 | 8.8 | |
| 2 | 25 | 11.0 | |
| 3 | 38 | 16.7 | |
| 4 | 25 | 11.0 | |
| 5 | 29 | 12.8 | |
| 6 | 14 | 6.2 | |
| 7 | 7 | 3.1 | |
| 8 | 2 | 0.9 | |
| 9 | 5 | 2.2 | |
| 10 | 16 | 7.0 | |
| 12 | 1 | 0.4 | |
| 14 | 2 | 0.9 | |
| 16 | 1 | 0.4 | |
| 20 | 3 | 1.3 | |
| Regions | Estern | 48 | 21. 1 |
| Central | 28 | 12.3 | |
| Northern | 39 | 17.2 | |
| Southwest | 19 | 8.4 | |
| Northwest | 30 | 13.2 | |
| Southern | 38 | 16.7 | |
| Northeast | 25 | 11.0 |
Multi-way ANOVA for the competency scores with regard to region, age, working experience, and professional title
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Regression analysis of independent variables with 5 competency domains
| Dependent variable | Modle | Independent variable | beta, β | adjust | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Professional quality | 1 | Constant | 4.012*** | 0.057 | 5.590** |
| Age | 0. 168** | ||||
| Working experience | 0.009 | ||||
| Number of training trails | 0.013 | ||||
| 2 | Constant | 4.001*** | 0.061 | 8.389*** | |
| Age | 0. 178*** | ||||
| Working experience | 0.014 | ||||
| 3 | Constant | 3.996*** | 0.058 | 14.971*** | |
| Age | 0. 196*** | ||||
| Psychological resilience | 1 | Constant | 4.040* | 0.012 | 1.885 |
| Age | 0.067 | ||||
| Working experience | 0.026 | ||||
| Number of training trails | 0 011 | ||||
| 2 | Constant | 4.005* | 0.014 | 2.607 | |
| Age | 0.096 | ||||
| Working experience | 0 013 | ||||
| 3 | Constant | 4.001* | 0.013 | 4.057* | |
| Age | 0. 112* | ||||
| Ability to assess aftermath | 1 | Constant | 3.401*** | 0.051 | 5.110*** |
| Age | 0. 119 | ||||
| Working experience | 0.054 | ||||
| Number of training trails | 0.018 | ||||
| 2 | Constant | 3.328*** | 0.050 | 6.887*** | |
| Age | 0. 179*** | ||||
| Number of training trails | 0.022 | ||||
| Emergency knowledge | 1 | Constant | 3. 164*** | 0.052 | 5.099*** |
| Age | 0. 173* | ||||
| Working experience | 0.036 | ||||
| Number of training trails | 0 007 | ||||
| 2 | Constant | 3. 169*** | 0.055 | 7.526*** | |
| Age | 0. 175* | ||||
| Working experience | 0 042 | ||||
| 3 | Constant | 3. 112*** | 0.054 | 13.996*** | |
| Age | 0.226*** | ||||
| Emergency skills | 1 | Constant | 3.311*** | 0.052 | 5.099*** |
| Age | 0.240*** | ||||
| Working experience | -0.002 | ||||
| Number of training trails | 0.011 | ||||
| 2 | Constant | 3.314*** | 0.055 | 7.526*** | |
| Age | 0.237*** | ||||
| Working experience | 0.011 | ||||
| 3 | Constant | 3.311*** | 0.054 | 13.996*** | |
| Age | 0.251*** |
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001