TIBBIYOT TALABALARI UCHUN SOG‘LIQNI SAQLASH MA’LUMOTLARI XAVFSIZLIGI MADANIYATI SHKALASINI (HDSC-MS) ISHLAB CHIQISH VA PSIXOMETRIK VALIDATSIYADAN O‘TKAZISH
Kalit so‘zlar:
tibbiyot talabalari, sog‘liqni saqlash ma’lumotlari xavfsizligi, bemor shaxsiy ma’lumotlarining maxfiyligi, xavfsizlik madaniyati, shkala ishlab chiqish, psixometrik validatsiya, faktor tahlili, O‘zbekiston.Abstrak
Sog‘liqni saqlash tizimida tibbiy ma’lumotlar xavfsizligining buzilishi ko‘p
jihatdan inson xulq-atvori bilan bog‘liq bo‘lsa-da, tibbiyot talabalarining axborot
xavfsizligiga oid bilimlari, xulq-atvori va munosabatlarini baholashga mo‘ljallangan
o‘lchov vositalarining aksariyati validatsiyadan o‘tkazilmagan. Ushbu tadqiqotning
maqsadi tibbiyot talabalari uchun sog‘liqni saqlash ma’lumotlari xavfsizligi madaniyati
shkalasini (Health Data Security Culture Scale for Medical Students — HDSC-MS) ishlab
chiqish va uning psixometrik xususiyatlarini baholashdan iborat. Mazkur ko‘p o‘lchovli
vosita to‘rtta komponentni: bilim, xavfsizlikka oid xulq-atvor, qadriyatlar va
munosabatlar hamda refleksiv mas’uliyatni o‘lchashga mo‘ljallangan.
Shkala bandlari nashr etilgan ilmiy tadqiqotlar, milliy qonunchilik va mahalliy
klinik amaliyotni o‘rganish asosida ishlab chiqildi hamda 8 nafar ekspert tomonidan
mazmuniy validlik koeffitsiyenti va indeksi asosida baholandi. Dastlabki sinovdan (n =
30) so‘ng ushbu vosita O‘zbekistonning ikkita universitetida tahsil olayotgan 412 nafar
bakalavriat bosqichidagi tibbiyot talabasi tomonidan to‘ldirildi, ulardan 403 nafarining
ma’lumotlari tahlilga kiritildi. Tanlanma tasodifiy ravishda eksplorator faktor tahlili
(EFA, n = 201) va konfirmator faktor tahlili (CFA, n = 202) uchun ikki guruhga ajratildi.
Ichki muvofiqlik (Cronbach α, McDonald ω), test–retest ishonchliligi (ICC, n = 64, 2–3
hafta), konvergent validlik, ma’lum guruhlar bo‘yicha validlik hamda ta’lim bosqichlari
kesimida o‘lchov invariantligi tekshirildi. Mazmuniy validlik qoniqarli darajada bo‘ldi
(S-CVI/Ave = 0,91). EFA Likert shkalasi bandlarining uch faktorli tuzilishini (xulq-atvor,
qadriyatlar/munosabatlar, refleksiv mas’uliyat) tasdiqladi va ushbu tuzilma
dispersiyaning 54,2 foizini izohladi. CFA modelning ma’lumotlarga mosligini tasdiqladi
(χ²/df = 1,86; CFI = 0,936; TLI = 0,928; RMSEA = 0,064; SRMR = 0,057). Mazkur model
bir faktorli va yuqori tartibli muqobil modellarga nisbatan yaxshiroq moslik ko‘rsatdi.
Ishonchlilik ko‘rsatkichlari qoniqarli va yaxshi darajada bo‘ldi (α = 0,78–0,83; ω = 0,79–
0,84; ICC = 0,74–0,81), bilim testi uchun esa KR-20 = 0,71 ni tashkil etdi. Quyi shkalalar
umumiy o‘zini o‘zi baholash ko‘rsatkichi bilan o‘rtacha darajadagi ijobiy korrelyatsiyani
(ρ = 0,31–0,46), xavfli xulq-atvorni aniqlash ro‘yxati bilan esa teskari korrelyatsiyani (ρ
= −0,38 dan −0,52 gacha) namoyon etdi. Klinik ta’lim bosqichidagi va maxsus
tayyorgarlikdan o‘tgan talabalar bilim bo‘yicha yuqoriroq natijalarga erishgan bo‘lsalar-
da, xulq-atvor ko‘rsatkichlarida farq kuzatilmadi yoki u juda kichik bo‘ldi. Ta’lim
bosqichlari bo‘yicha konfiguratsion, metrik va skalyar invariantlik tasdiqlandi (ΔCFI ≤
0,008). HDSC-MS shkalasining yakuniy shakli bilimga oid 12 ta, xulq-atvorga oid 11 ta,
munosabatlarga oid 9 ta, refleksivlikka oid 7 ta va vaziyatli mulohaza yuritishga oid 6 ta
banddan iborat.
HDSC-MS tibbiyot talabalarining ma’lumotlar xavfsizligi madaniyatini
diagnostika qilish va ta’limiy aralashuvlar samaradorligini baholash uchun nazariy
asoslangan, ko‘p o‘lchovli o‘lchov vositasini taqdim etadi. Mualliflarning ma’lumotlariga
ko‘ra, ushbu shkala Markaziy Osiyo sharoitida ishlab chiqilgan mazkur turdagi birinchi
vositadir.
Библиографические ссылки
1. World Health Organization. Global Strategy on Digital Health 2020–2025. – Geneva: WHO, 2021.
2. Mostaghimi A., Olszewski A. E., Bell S. K., Roberts D. H., Crotty B. H. Erosion of Digital Professionalism During
Medical Students’ Core Clinical Clerkships // JMIR Medical Education. – 2017. – Vol. 3, № 1. – Article e9. – DOI:
10.2196/mededu.6879.
3. Beltrán-Aroca C. M., Ruiz-Montero R., Labella F., Girela-López E. The Role of Undergraduate Medical Students
Training in Respect for Patient Confidentiality // BMC Medical Education. – 2021. – Vol. 21. – Article 273. – DOI: 10.1186/s12909-021-02689-6.
4. Tran K., Morra D., Lo V., Quan S. D., Abrams H., Wu R. C. Medical Students and Personal Smartphones in the Clinical
Environment: The Impact on Confidentiality of Personal Health Information and Professionalism // Journal of Medical
Internet Research. – 2014. – Vol. 16, № 5. – Article e132. – DOI: 10.2196/jmir.3138.
5. Mota-Anaya E., Almeida-Chafloque K., Castro-Arechaga S., Flores-Anaya L., León-Lozada C., Pereyra-Elías R., Mayta-
Tristán P. Breaking a Vital Trust: Posting Photos of Patients on Facebook Among a Sample of Peruvian Medical Students //
AJOB Empirical Bioethics. – 2019. – Vol. 10, № 4. – P. 241–249. – DOI: 10.1080/23294515.2019.1672826.
6. Hosseini-Qavam-Abad L., Asghari F., Bandehagh A., Bigdeli S., Najafipour S. Designing a Tool to Assess Medical
Students’ Knowledge and Attitudes of Confidentiality and Disclosure of Patient Information // Journal of Medical Education.
– 2016. – Vol. 15, № 2. – P. 75–80.
7. Marelić M., Viskić J., Poplašen L. M., Relić D., Jokić D., Rukavina T. V. Development and Validation of Scale for
Measuring Attitudes Towards E-Professionalism Among Medical and Dental Students: SMePROF-S Scale // BMC Medical
Education. – 2021. – Vol. 21. – Article 445. – DOI: 10.1186/s12909-021-02879-2.
8. Schein E. H. Organizational Culture and Leadership. – 4th ed. – San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010.
9. Bandura A. Social Learning Theory. – Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1977.
10. Mokkink L. B., Terwee C. B., Patrick D. L., Alonso J., Stratford P. W., Knol D. L. et al. The COSMIN Study Reached
International Consensus on Taxonomy, Terminology, and Definitions of Measurement Properties for Health-Related
Patient-Reported Outcomes // Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. – 2010. – Vol. 63, № 7. – P. 737–745.
11. von Elm E., Altman D. G., Egger M., Pocock S. J., Gøtzsche P. C., Vandenbroucke J. P. The Strengthening the Reporting
of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies // Annals
of Internal Medicine. – 2007. – Vol. 147, № 8. – P. 573–577.
12. Lawshe C. H. A Quantitative Approach to Content Validity // Personnel Psychology. – 1975. – Vol. 28, № 4. – P.
563–575.
13. Polit D. F., Beck C. T. The Content Validity Index: Are You Sure You Know What’s Being Reported? // Research in
Nursing & Health. – 2006. – Vol. 29, № 5. – P. 489–497.
14. Boateng G. O., Neilands T. B., Frongillo E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez H. R., Young S. L. Best Practices for Developing and
Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer // Frontiers in Public Health. – 2018. – Vol. 6. –
Article 149.
15. Hu L. T., Bentler P. M. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus
New Alternatives // Structural Equation Modeling. – 1999. – Vol. 6, № 1. – P. 1–55.