Myroniuk І. S., Basarab Y. О.

CONTENT AND COGNITIVE VALIDITY OF THE PHC-STI-RAT-UA TOOL FOR ASSESSING PRIMARY HEALTH CARE READINESS TO IMPLEMENT SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT SERVICES

---

Show/Download

About the author:

Myroniuk І. S., Basarab Y. О.

Heading:

PUBLIC HEALTH

Type of article:

Scientific article

Annotation:

Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) remain an important public health concern. Integrating STI prevention, diagnosis, and treatment services into primary health care (PHC) requires simultaneous readiness of health care professionals and health care facilities. This highlights the need for a validated tool to comprehensively assess individual and organizational readiness of PHC for the implementation of such services. The aim of the study assess the content and cognitive validity of the author-developed PHC-STI-RAT-UA tool for assessing PHC readiness to implement STI diagnosis and treatment services through a sequential, structured expert assessment of content validity and cognitive validation. A methodological study of the initial validation of the PHC-STI-RAT-UA was conducted in two stages: expert assessment of content validity involving 11 experts and cognitive validation involving 18 PHC physicians. Item relevance was assessed using a four-point scale, with calculation of the Item-Level Content Validity Index (I-CVI) and Scale-Level Content Validity Index (S-CVI). Cognitive testing was analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis of participants’ responses. The author-developed PHC-STI-RAT-UA demonstrated a high level of content validity according to the expert panel: S-CVI/Ave=0.925, with I-CVI values ranging from 0.89 to 1.00. None of the 32 assessed elements had an I-CVI below the predefined acceptability threshold. Expert ratings of clarity, unambiguity, and practical value ranged from 3.55 to 4.00 out of 4.00. Cognitive validation confirmed the high acceptability of the tool: the mean completion time was 7.2 minutes, ease of completion was rated 9.72/10, and suitability for family physicians was rated 9.94/10. No more than 22.2% of respondents reported difficulties during completion; most were related to specific clinical or organizational aspects rather than unclear wording. The identified comments were predominantly editorial and did not require structural modification of the tool. The PHC-STI-RAT-UA demonstrated high levels of content and cognitive validity, clarity, and practical applicability. Following the planned editorial revisions, the tool can proceed to field pilot testing and further evaluation of its psychometric properties.

Tags:

Bibliography:

1. World Health Organization. Global health sector strategies on HIV, viral hepatitis and sexually transmitted infections, 2022–2030: 2026 mid-term progress report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2026. 122 p. Available from: https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/787f968f-9441-48a3-9641-c1c16fcc66a2/content
2. World Health Organization. Recommendations on the delivery of health services for the prevention and care of sexually transmitted infections. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2025. 68 p. Available from: https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/c3bc57a6-0bb0-4c2c-b4a6-8bd5025ccd7a/content
3. Basarab YO, Myroniuk IS. PHC-STI-RAT-UA v1.0: avtorskyi instrument otsiniuvannia hotovnosti pervynnoi medychnoi dopomohy do nadannia posluh z diahnostyky ta likuvannia IPSSh [Internet]. Uzhhorod: UzhNU; 2026. Dostupno: https://dspace.uzhnu.edu.ua/ items/40ce537d-93b0-40d5-af7f-7a86dbc0e9e1 [in Ukrainian].
4. Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6:42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42
5. Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A, Westerman MJ, Patrick DL, Alonso J, et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1159-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0
6. Mokkink LB, Herbelet S, Tuinman PR, Terwee CB. Content validity: judging the relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility of an outcome measurement instrument – a COSMIN perspective. J Clin Epidemiol. 2025;185:111879. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111879
7. Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Young SL. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Public Health. 2018;6:149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
8. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
9. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2007;30(4):459-67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199
10. Rattray J, Jones MC. Essential elements of questionnaire design and development. J Clin Nurs. 2007;16(2):234-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01573.x

Publication of the article:

«Bulletin of problems biology and medicine», 2026 Issue 3, 182, 186-193 pages, index UDC 614.2:616.97-084(477)

DOI:

10.29254/2077-4214-2026-3-182-186-193