MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390789314 · doi:10.3390/healthcare12020183

Perceptions, Attitudes, and Barriers towards the Use of Central Board for Accreditation of Healthcare Institutions (CBAHI) Standards among Saudi Healthcare Providers

2024· article· en· W4390789314 on OpenAlexaff
Saeed Kabrah, Samer Abuzerr, Arwa Flemban, Layal Jambi, Ahmed Kabrah, Saad Alghamdi, Saeed M. Alghamdi, A. Alshareef, Seham M. Melibary, Dakheelallah Homoud Al-Ghamdi, Najeeb O. Filfilan, Tahani S. Ralsan, Adel A. Alzhrani

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersKing Saud University
KeywordsAccreditationHealth careFamily medicineBachelorMarital statusSocioeconomic statusCross-sectional studyNursingMedicinePsychologyMedical educationEnvironmental healthPopulationGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement is a strategic priority for all healthcare systems. However, the engagement of healthcare providers in pursuing accreditation plays a critical role in integrating standards into routine practice. Therefore, the current study assessed the perceptions, attitudes, and barriers towards using the Central Board for Accreditation of Healthcare Institutions (CBAHI) standards among Saudi healthcare providers. METHOD: This cross-sectional study was conducted in 2023 among a representative sample (364) of Saudi healthcare providers (both genders, aged 20-60) working at twenty governmental CBAHI-accredited hospitals in Saudi Arabia. The study participants were selected using a cluster random sampling method. Data regarding the perceptions, attitudes, and barriers toward using CBAHI standards among Saudi healthcare providers were evaluated using a validated questionnaire. Additional information regarding demographic-socioeconomic variables was obtained with an interview-based questionnaire. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 28. RESULTS: -value < 0.05). The means of overall item agreement percentage of the participating healthcare providers for perceptions and attitudes towards using CBAHI standards and attitudes towards using CBAHI standards as a tool for quality improvement were 80.1%, 76.4%, and 72.0%, respectively. The highest item agreement percentage of the participating healthcare providers regarding the barriers that inhibit the hospital from obtaining the full benefit from the CBAHI accreditation was for the inexpedient IT tools (59.6%). CONCLUSION: The current study's results demonstrated accepted perceptions and attitudes toward using CBAHI standards among Saudi healthcare providers. In addition, the identified barriers should be alleviated to improve the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of the hospitals in Saudi Arabia. The findings also help clarify the accreditation operating process, which may be helpful to policymakers and stakeholders in making informed decisions on integrating accreditation standards.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.216
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcareSame topicHealthcare Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207