Measurement of Humanity Among Health Professionals: Development and Validation of the Medical Humanity Scale Using the Delphi Method

BACKGROUND: Despite the importance of humanism in providing health care, there is a lack of valid and reliable tool for assessing humanity among health professionals. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to design a new humanism scale and to assess the validity of this scale in measuring humanism among Syrian health professional students. METHODS: The Medical Humanity Scale (MHS) was designed. It consists of 27 items categorized into 7 human values including patient-oriented care, respect, empathy, ethics, altruism, and compassion. The scale was tested for internal consistency and reliability using Cronbach α and test-retest methods. The construct validity of the scale was also tested to assess the ability of the scale in differentiating between groups of health professional students with different levels of medical humanity. A 7-point Likert scale was adopted. The study included 300 participants including 97 medical, 78 dental, 82 pharmacy, and 43 preparatory-year students from Syrian universities. The Delphi method was used and factors analysis was performed. Bartlett test of sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sample adequacy were used. The number of components was extracted using principal component analysis. RESULTS: The mean score of the MHS was 158.7 (SD 11.4). The MHS mean score of female participants was significantly higher than the mean score of male participants (159.59, SD 10.21 vs 155.48, SD 14.35; P=.008). The MHS mean score was significantly lower in dental students (154.12, SD 1.45; P=.005) than the mean scores of medical students (159.77, SD 1.02), pharmacy students (161.40, SD 1.05), and preparatory-year students (159.05, SD 1.94). However, no significant relationship was found between humanism and academic year (P=.32), university type (P=.34), marital status (P=.64), or financial situation (P=.16). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test (0.730) and Bartlett test of sphericity (1201.611, df=351; P=.01) were performed. Factor analysis indicated that the proportion of variables between the first and second factors was greater than 10%, confirming that the scale was a single group. The Cronbach α for the overall scale was 0.735, indicating that the scale had acceptable reliability and validity. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that the MHS is a reliable and valid tool for measuring humanity among health professional students and the development of patient-centered care.