Test/Re-Test reliability of the readiness for interprofessional education learning scale and interdisciplinary education perception scale in health science students.

This study aimed to establish the test/re-test reliability of two common interprofessional education (IPE) instruments, the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) and the Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale (IEPS), and to compare results based on previous IPE experience. The RIPLS and the IEPS were distributed to 251 students within five academic health science programs at one university. Both instruments were distributed at a second session 10-14 days later. Weighted Kappa, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), standard error of measurement, and minimal detectable change were calculated for each instrument's composite scores and subscales. Assessments occurred for all subjects and between students with and without previous IPE experience. Overall and between-group composite score reliability for the RIPLS and IEPS were excellent (ICC≥0.81). RIPLS subscale ICCs were variable per previous IPE experience, ranging from fair-excellent (ICC = 0.56-0.86). IEPS subscale ICCs were excellent for students with previous IPE experience (ICC≥0.76), and fair-excellent for students without previous experience (ICC = 0.64-0.84). Students with previous IPE experience had significantly higher scores within and between sessions for the RIPLS (p ≤ 0.031) but not the IEPS. Both instruments have acceptable measurement consistency; however, the RIPLS varied in repeatability compared to the IEPS. Previous IPE experience should be accounted for when distributing/interpreting the results.

Strength of tobacco control in rural communities.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to: (a) describe the Strength of Tobacco Control (SoTC) capacity, efforts and resources in rural communities, and (b) examine the relationships between SoTC scores and sociodemographic, political, and health-ranking variables. METHODS: Data were collected during the baseline preintervention phase of a community-based randomized, controlled trial. Rural counties were selected using stratified random sampling (n = 39). Key informant interviews were employed. The SoTC, originally developed and tested with states, was adapted to a county-level measure assessing capacity, efforts, and resources. Univariate analysis and bivariate correlations assessed the SoTC total score and construct scores, as well as their relationships. Multiple regression examined the relationships of county-level sociodemographic, political, and health-ranking variables with SoTC total and construct scores. FINDINGS: County population size was positively correlated with capacity (r = 0.44; P < .01), efforts (r = 0.54; P= .01), and SoTC total score (r = 0.51; P < .01). Communities with more resources for tobacco control had better overall county health rankings (r = .43; P < .01). With population size, percent Caucasian, tobacco production, and smoking prevalence as potential predictors of SoTC total score, only population size was significant. CONCLUSIONS: SoTC scores may be useful in determining local tobacco control efforts and appropriate planning for additional public health interventions and resources. Larger rural communities were more likely to have strong tobacco control programs than smaller communities. Smaller rural communities may need to be targeted for training and technical assistance. Leadership development and allocation of resources are needed in all rural communities to address disparities in tobacco use and tobacco control policies.