Development and Validation of the Organizational Cultural Values Scale for Senior Healthcare Executives in Chinese Hospitals

Development and Validation of the Organizational Cultural Values Scale for Senior Healthcare Executives in Chinese Hospitals | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Development and Validation of the Organizational Cultural Values Scale for Senior Healthcare Executives in Chinese Hospitals Xiangling LI, Wuxiang Shi, Zhaoquan Huang, Haitao Fan, Yue Zhang This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7309689/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Most existing cultural values scales focus on nonmedical fields and are unsuitable for measuring the cultural values of leaders in the medical field. The cultural values of senior healthcare executives are important in patient safety culture; thus there is an urgent need to construct a scale system to evaluate these cultural values. We aimed to develop a reliable scale for assessing the cultural values of senior healthcare executives. Methods The initial framework of index entries was constructed using literature analysis and a group interview method. Then, the whole system of indicators for cultural values of senior healthcare executives was constructed using the three-round Delphi method. Overall, 94 senior healthcare executives of 13 hospitals were surveyed for reliability and validity. Results The final scale contained 4 primary, 13 secondary, and 39 tertiary indicators. After three rounds of expert consultation, questionnaire collation, and analysis, the recall rates of the indicators were 95%, 100%, and 100%, respectively; the authority coefficients were 0.74, 0.75, and 0.77, respectively; and the coefficient of expert opinion coordination fluctuated above and below 0.4. After using the questionnaire method for validation, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.972, and the cumulative variance contribution of the common factor was 82.56%. Conclusions The cultural values scale for senior healthcare executives had high scientific validity, authority, and good reliability, which can provide a scientific basis for improving patient safety culture and alleviating doctor-patient disputes. Senior healthcare executives Cultural values Scales Delphi method Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Values are goals that transcend situations and meet needs. They play an important guiding role in a person's life and social relationships [ 1 ]. A cultural value system is a unique set of perceptions and opinions that each society, organization, and individual acquires in the context of the larger environment in which they live. It acts as a universal implicit constraint on thoughts and behaviors. In 2013, Yang proposed that cultural values are common to the mainstream group in the current cultural context and are generally shared by other members. They are a set of values that individuals are taught through education and propaganda in the process of continuous social evolution, that form individual values [ 2 ]. In 1964, in the book "Management Squared,” published by Mouton and Black, scholars of management at the University of Texas, it was mentioned that "in reality, the style of enterprise leaders has a decisive effect on the business style of the company" [ 3 ]. Here, style refers to the cultural values of leaders. Numerous business management practices have shown that the cultural values upheld and promoted by a business leader not only influence and determine individual behavior but also affect the overall organizational behavior and the management and effectiveness of the organization. Fritzsche tested five hypotheses by modeling structural equations with 174 working professionals. Hypothesis 2 stated that an altruistic value structure is positively related to ethical behavior (R2 = 0.33, P < 0.05) and has the largest path coefficient; thus, altruistic values have a positive influence on ethical decision-making. Regarding hypothesis 3, the value of structured self-improvement was negatively related to ethical behavior (R2 = 0.22, P 0.05) [ 4 ]. Guay and Choi used a sample of 215 leaders and 1284 followers from 10 organizations. By building hierarchical linear models for leaders, they found that high levels of neuroticism were significantly correlated with organizational citizenship behavior (γ = 7.43, P < 0.05); this interaction also significantly improved the fit of the model to the data ( \(\:{\text{x}}^{2}\) = 8.59, P < 0.01). Thus, they concluded that the development and motivation of transformational leaders could counteract neuroticism and introversion of followers and encourage them to exhibit organizational citizenship behaviors [ 5 ]. The main people in charge of a hospital are the legal representative; proposer; implementer; and advocate of the hospital’s system, norms, and culture. They play an important role in the construction and development of hospitals. Their personal beliefs, pursuits, and standards for judging right and wrong inevitably affect the spirit, personality, and development of the hospital, and their cultural values influence and even determine the behavior, management, and effectiveness of the entire organization. Patient safety culture is part of hospital safety culture; as such, the cultural values upheld by the director are very important influencing factors. Therefore, evaluating the cultural values of hospital leaders is important for patient safety. Many scales exist for measuring the cultural values of leaders in nonmedical fields. For example: from a managerial perspective, in 1980, the Dutch literary scholar, Hofstede, divided cultural values into four dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/femininity, and collectivism/individualism [ 6 ]. More than 10 years later, the international universal applicability of the scale was fully considered and was made applicable in the Chinese national context. Chinese scholar, Mike Peng, used the questionnaire method to study several countries around the world and finally identified a fifth dimension (long-term orientation/short-term orientation). Schwartz classified individual cultural values into four dimensions by studying cultural practices around the world: conservatism, change acceptance, transcendence, and self-reinforcement, and developed the final Schwartz Value Survey scale [ 7 ]. The List of Values (LOV) scale was further developed by Kahle, based on previous studies by Maslow (1954), Rokeach (1973), and Feather (1975)[ 8 ]. The LOV scale contains nine individual value entries that can be divided into five motivational domains: self-directedness (self-respect and achievement of aspirations), achievement (being respected), hedonism (enjoyment and pursuit, excitement), maturity (sense of belonging and harmonious interpersonal climate), and security (the need to feel safe) [ 8 ]. However, scales measuring the cultural values of senior healthcare executives in the medical field are rarely reported. The cultural value orientations of senior healthcare executives towards humanistic care, medical ethics, risk awareness, and patient safety may affect patient safety culture. Therefore, in this study, we adopted the Delphi method to develop a cultural value scale for senior healthcare executives. We also explored new mechanisms and paths to improve patient safety by encouraging the executives to reshape their cultural values, with patient safety as a core concept. Emphasizing the importance of patient safety culture and behavioral reengineering, through internalization to all employees, organizations, and systems, can help improve doctor-patient relationship and establish methods to achieve higher level of patient safety. Methods We conducted a literature review and used the Delphi method and hierarchical analysis to design a system of cultural value indicators for senior healthcare executives. First, initial scale entries were constructed using a literature review method. Three rounds of the Delphi method were conducted to anonymously collect expert opinions. After each round, the collected questionnaires were analyzed, organized, and presented for a new round of expert consultation until there was no disagreement in the expert opinion [ 9 ]. Finally, the reliability and validity of the scale were measured by calculating the weight of each indicator using hierarchical analysis and conducting a pre-experiment on the scale and shown in Fig. 1 Phase 1:Structured Rapid Evidence Synthesis We conducted an extensive literature review to develop the initial metrics. Our team searched literature repositories such as CNKI, the Wanfang database, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Willey, Elsevier, PubMed, and Springer Link. The search terms included "patient/patient safety culture," "patient safety,” "cultural values,” "Hospital Culture,” "entrepreneurial/leadership cultural values," and "cultural values scale.” The first search was conducted in December 2022and was updated in February 2024. Based on the goal of maximizing the social benefits of the hospital, the final index system was more consistent with the cultural values of the director. We screened and included studies and guidelines involving leaders of hospital departments, interventions related to patient safety culture, screening and development of indicators related to hospital culture interventions, and those published in English and Chinese. The inclusion criteria were based on indicators, and after several rounds of group discussions, we formed a preliminary framework of value scale indicators for senior healthcare executives, which comprised four areas: humanistic care, medical ethics, worrying awareness, and cherishing life, containing four primary, 13 secondary, and 39 tertiary indicators. Phase 2: Iterative Framework Development After thorough expert consultation, the questionnaire was divided into four parts. The first part was the questionnaire description section, which mainly introduced the meaning and purpose of the questionnaire and stated the instructions for filling out and collecting the form. The second part contained questions on basic information of the experts, which mainly included the age, education, title, postgraduate supervisor qualification, work nature, and the basis of judgement on the evaluation index of hospital cultural values, whether involved in hospital management time function work or research work. The third part comprised questions regarding the indicator system of cultural values of senior healthcare executives: it mainly contained the connotation of specific indicators, the importance and operability of each indicator, experts’ familiarity with each indicator, and their opinions on the modification of reference indicators. Under each indicator there were spaces for experts to suggest indicators to be added or deleted. The fourth part contained questions on the weight coefficients of the index system, which mainly comprised specific scoring criteria for the weight of each index and a comparison of the two within the same indicator level. An expert panel was formed to evaluate the indicators. Consultation questionnaires were distributed and collected via email and letters. The ideal number of participants for the Delphi method is 10–20, with three consecutive rounds of questionnaire screening [ 10 ]. Thus, we created a panel of 20 experts who had bachelor's degrees or higher, experienced in hospital management practice and research work, and provided informed consent for voluntary participation. We excluded those who did not respond to the consultation questionnaire within the specified time and those who refused to participate. Phase 3:Structured e-Delphi (dup: abstract ?) We used the Delphi technique to determine the scale structure of the cultural values of contemporary senior healthcare executives by considering the opinions of experts from different fields focusing on humanistic care, medical ethics, risk awareness, and patient safety. The Delphi technique is a data collection tool that researchers use to get the perspective of people with a voice in the problem-solving process. It has three basic features: confidentiality of participation, controlled analysis of group responses, and controlled feedback [ 11 ]. The principles of anonymity, feedback, and statistics were strictly followed. The opinions of the participating experts were kept confidential to improve their responding confidence and to avoid unconditional agreement with the opinions of other well-known experts. The consultation questionnaire was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, with experts scoring each indicator according to its importance and operability (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = agree, 3 = average, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). Each entry was followed by a blank space for the experts to provide open-ended comments and corresponding reasons. Statistical analyses of the data collected at the end of each round of the study were performed. According to the principle of index screening for the collected consultation questionnaires, the indexes with mean importance and feasibility ≥ 4.0 and coefficient of variation < 0.25 were retained; the indexes with mean importance and feasibility < 4.0 and coefficient of variation ≥ 0.25 were deleted. If only one of the inclusion criteria for importance mean and coefficient of variation was satisfied, or if all of them were not satisfied, the indicators were added, modified, combined, and deleted after a group discussion with reference to the experts' revision. The results of the analysis conducted at the end of each round were communicated to the participants in the following successive rounds of questionnaire analysis to inform them about the general trends. This enabled the participants to reexamine their ideas by comparing them with the results, methods, and perspectives presented to them. The coefficient of the expert positivity degree was expressed using the questionnaire recovery rate. A coefficient of expert degree ≥ 70% indicates that the enthusiasm of experts is high, and that the study is of certain research significance [ 9 ]. The expert authority coefficient (Cr) is based on the average value of the judgment coefficient (Ca) and familiarity coefficient (Cs); that is, Cr = (Ca + Cs)/2. When Cr ≥ 0.70, it is considered that the authority of experts and the reliability of prediction is high [ 14 ]. Ca is judged based on four aspects: work experience, theoretical analysis, peer knowledge, and expert intuition, and is classified according to three levels: large, small, and medium. The specific judgement criteria were work experience (degree of influence on expert judgement: large = 0.5, medium = 0.4, small = 0.3), theoretical analysis (degree of influence on expert judgement: large = 0.3, medium = 0.2, small = 0.1), reference to domestic and international literature (degree of influence on expert judgement: large = 0.1, medium = 0.1, small = 0.1), and intuition (degree of influence on expert judgement: large = 0.1, medium = 0.1, small = 0.1) (Table 1 ). Cs indicates the expert's familiarity with the content1 of the consultation and is rated on a 5-point Likert scale with the following criteria: very familiar = 1, familiar = 0.8, more familiar = 0.6, average = 0.4, and unfamiliar = 0.2. Table 1 Quantitative table of the basis for expert indicator judgements Judgement basis Degree of influence large medium small Practical experience 0.5 0.4 0.3 Theoretical analysis 0.3 0.2 0.1 Peer understanding 0.1 0.1 0.1 Expert intuition 0.1 0.1 0.1 The coefficient of the degree of coordination of expert opinion is primarily a way of judging the consistency of experts' evaluations of each indicator and whether there are large differences or identifying highly coordinated experts and those with heterogeneous opinions. It generally includes Kendall’s W coordination coefficient (W) and the coefficient of variation (CV) [ 15 ]. W generally fluctuates in the range of 0.5. In this study, W was considered statistically significant at P < 0.05. The closer W was to 0.5, the higher the level of expert coordination and the stronger the agreement with expert opinion. Phase 4: Metric Weighting via Analytic Hierarchy Process The AHP is based on the idea of decomposing complex problems into several simpler elements [ 12 ]. This involves simplifying the complex problem, comparing the advantages and disadvantages of different solutions, making a sublinear prediction of the solution, and finally selecting the best solution based on the data [ 13 ]. We used AHP to define the weight of each cultural value index. First, we established the target tree, stratified the entire index system, and established a target tree of cultural values. Then, we built the matrix; the judgment matrix of pairwise comparison was constructed using the hierarchical structure of the target tree (Table 2 ). Finally, the index weight and the weights of the indicators at each level were calculated, and a consistency test was performed. If the consistency ratio (CR = CI/RI) was less than 0.1, the judgment matrix was considered to have a satisfactory consistency. Otherwise, the judgment matrix was readjusted. The decision process of the expert group was implemented using the YAAHP software. Table 2 Evaluation criteria for the target tree at all levels. Marks Relative importance Interpretation 1 Equal importance A and B are equally important. 3 Slight importance A is slightly more important than B. 5 Basic importance A is more important than B. 7 Strong importance A is strongly more important than B. 9 Absolute importance A is absolutely more important than B. 2,4,6,8 The median of two adjacent levels The results of A and B are in the middle of the above results Countdown As mentioned above Comparison of the importance of B and A Phase 5: Psychometric Validation and Confirmatory Framework Finalization A formal survey was conducted at 13 public hospitals in Guilin, Guangxi. Using a whole-group sampling method, the survey included the secretaries, directors, and vice presidents of each hospital (leaders with administrative decision-making power). Formal questionnaires were distributed to the office managers of each hospital, who then distributed them to hospital-level leaders and collected the questionnaires. Overall, 100 questionnaires were distributed, of which 94 were collected and validated. Reliability and validity analyses were conducted using the 39 entries of the scale. The Cronbach’s α coefficient is the best coefficient for reliability: the larger the coefficient value, the better the consistency and reliability. Its value ranges from 0 to 1, and a coefficient value above 0.7, indicates good reliability [ 16 ]. Regarding the split-half reliability coefficients, items were divided into two equal halves based on the parity of item numbers. The half reliability coefficient should be greater than 0.70 to achieve an acceptable level [ 17 ]. Higher split-half reliability coefficients indicate better scale reliability and internal consistency. The correlation coefficient between the two groups was then calculated, and the Spearman–Brown formula was applied to estimate the reliability of the entire scale. Validity analysis generally includes content and structural validity. Content validity is mainly used to measure the appropriateness and consistency of the content using the expert consultation method, where the experts determine whether the content of the consultation scale is applicable. The construct validity was analyzed using correlation and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). If the Spearman correlation coefficient of the dimension-total is between 0.3 and 0.8, the correlation coefficient between dimensions is less than 0.8, and the item-total score is between 0.3 and 0.8, it can be inferred that the scale has good correlation and discrimination [ 18 ]. If the Kaiser–Meir–Olkin (KMO) value is above 0.8, and the Bartlett's sphericity test score is less than 0.5, there is a significant difference between the entries, indicating that the data can be used for factor analysis [ 19 ]. Results Phase 1:Structured Rapid Evidence Synthesis During the initial search, 780 records were identified, of which 20 underwent full-text screening and 15 met the inclusion criteria for this review (Fig. 2 ). These articles described a range of methods used to develop research scales. Multiple approaches were employed to construct and refine the framework, including: 40% of studies utilizing expert panels, 30% through key informant interviews, 30% involving stakeholder participation (in the form of face-to-face meetings, email communication, and questionnaires), and 25% adopting the Delphi methodology. Phase 2: Iterative Framework Development Following a literature review and discussions within the research team, an initial index system for hospital directors' cultural values was preliminarily constructed. This system comprised 4 first-level indicators (Humanistic Care, Medical Ethics, Sense of Urgency, and Value of Life), 13 second-level indicators (Humanistic Spirit, Humanistic Institution, Humanistic Literacy, Humanistic Realm, Medical Ethics Construction, Medical Style Construction, Humanitarianism, Consciousness of Active Cognition, Critical Awareness of Potential Risks, Scientific Judgment Awareness, Quality of Life, Life Expectancy, and Medical Safety), and 35 items, forming the initial item pool for the Hospital Directors' Cultural Values Scale. Phase 3:Structured e-Delphi Overall, 20 experts with different work experiences in teaching and research, administration (n = 18), and business technology (n = 2) were invited to participate in the expert consultation. One expert failed to respond to the questionnaire within the required time frame; 19 experts met the inclusion criteria. The 19 experts were from 11 provinces and cities, including Beijing (n = 1), Nanjing (n = 3), Wuhan (n = 2), Hangzhou (n = 2), Jinan (n = 1), Sichuan (n = 2), Weifang (n = 2), Hefei (n = 2), Harbin (n = 3), and Hohhot (n = 1). The mean age (mean ± standard deviation) was 54.7 ± 5.9 years, and all of them had postgraduate degrees or higher. Among them, two had master degrees (10.5%) and 17 had PhDs (89.5%). All experts involved in this consultation participated in hospital management practices and research work. There were 18 experts with senior titles (94.7%) and one with an associate title (5.3%) (Table 3 ). Table 3 Expert personal characteristics (N = 19). Characteristics Classification Frequency Percentage (%) Sex Male 13 68.42 Female 6 31.58 Age (years) 41–50 5 26.32 51–60 13 68.42 61–70 1 5.26 Education level Master's degree 2 10.53 Doctoral degree 17 89.47 Profession Teaching and Research 18 94.74 Administration 4 21.05 Business Technology 2 10.53 Others 0 0.00 Professional title Intermediate title 0 0.00 Deputy senior title 1 5.26 Senior professional title 18 94.74 Working years 10–19 2 10.53 20–29 8 42.11 30–39 8 42.11 ≥ 40 1 5.26 Participation in hospital management practice and research management practice Yes 19 100 No 0 0.00 In the process of expert consultation, the response rate was 95% (20/19) in the first round, and 100% (19/19) in the second and third rounds. One expert did not respond within the specified time. All questionnaires recovered were valid, with an efficiency rate of 100%. The authority coefficients of the experts in the three rounds were 0.86, 0.87, and 0.88, indicating that the experts involved in this consultation had high authority. The expert coordination coefficients (W) of the importance level indicators in the first round were 0.024, 0.095, and 0.112, and the W values of feasibility were 0.026, 0.155, and 0.309, respectively. The W values of the importance indicators in the second round were 0.090, 0.108, and 0.141, and the W values of feasibility were 0.044, 0.254, and 0.330, respectively. The W values for the importance level indicators in the third round were 0.115, 0.225, and 0.206, and the W values for feasibility were 0.052, 0.271, and 0.363, respectively. After three rounds of expert consultation, the W-values of importance and operability for each level of indicator gradually increased, fluctuating around 0.5, and the differences between these changes were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The coefficients of the three coordination levels are listed in Table 4 . Table 4 Expert opinion coordination coefficient consistency test results Round Degree First grade indexes Second level indicator Third grade indexes Kendall’sW \(\:{\text{x}}^{2}\) P Kendall’sW \(\:{\text{x}}^{2}\) P Kendall’sW \(\:{\text{x}}^{2}\) P 1 Importance 0.024 1.291 0.731 0.095 21.609 0.042 0.112 81.148 < 0.001 Feasibility 0.026 1.500 0.682 0.155 33.479 0.001 0.309 223.316 < 0.001 2 Importance 0.090 5.118 0.163 0.108 21.453 0.029 0.141 81.492 < 0.001 Feasibility 0.044 2.524 0.471 0.254 50.229 < 0.001 0.330 190.187 < 0.001 3 Importance 0.115 6.563 0.087 0.225 48.526 < 0.001 0.206 105.320 < 0.001 Feasibility 0.052 2.828 0.419 0.271 61.780 < 0.001 0.363 185.677 < 0.001 3.3 Delphi Method for Indicator Screening Process The results of the first round of expert consultation were analyzed; the mean scores of the important values of two secondary indicators, quality of life and life expectancy, were lower than 4 and the coefficient of variation was higher than 0.25. Three indicators i.e. preparedness, more than less strong, and less than not strong, were used to understand the latest medical situation at home and abroad and the quality of life and life expectancy of general diseases and special patients. Based on the average score of the important values of each index in the first round and the qualitative revision opinions of the experts, we made three types of modifications to the expert consultation questionnaire in the first round. (1) Deletion: According to the screening principle, the average score of the important values was lower than 4 and the coefficient of variation was higher than 0.25, following the expert's qualitative revision opinions, five secondary and nine tertiary indicators were deleted. (2) Modification: For the second-level indicators, the construction of medical ethics was merged. The descriptions of the three second level and five third level indicators were modified to express the meaning of the indicators more clearly and accurately. (3) Increase: Since the experts of the secondary indicators were aware of the primary indicators’ distress, it was believed that they should not only stay conscious but also reflect on whether they have taken actions to control risks and reduce medical errors and accidents. Therefore, after discussions with the research group, four secondary indicators were added: awareness of risk monitoring and early warning, awareness of risk decision-making, handling mechanisms of sudden medical adverse events, and learning optimization mechanisms. The three-level indicators were also reconstructed by adding 11 indicators. After sorting and statistically analyzing the results of the first round of expert consultation, the questionnaire was revised, and the second round of expert consultation was conducted. The mean of the importance values of the four first-level indicators was above 4.50 points; the mean of the importance values of the secondary indicators was above four points; only one of the three-level indicators had an importance value mean below four points, and the coefficient of variation was above 0.25. The indicator is a positive response to risk, does not evade it, and is not a prevaricate. In this study, the following three types of modifications were made to the second round of expert consultation questionnaire: (1) Deletion: a one third-level indicator was deleted because the mean score of important values was lower than 4 and the coefficient of variation was higher than 0.25 and because of the qualitative modification opinions of the experts; (2) Modification: experts generally believe that the “sense of urgency” in the first-level indicators should be revised to “risk awareness” and “life attention” should be revised to “patient safety”; revise the statement description of 1 second-level indicator and 10 third-level indicators to clearly express the meaning of the indicators. (3) Increase: an increase in one secondary index, “medical ethics review system” corresponded to an increase in four tertiary indicators. The mean values of the four indicators in the third round were above 4.77 points; the average results of the important values of the secondary indicators were above 4.70, and that for only one indicator, “learning optimization consciousness,” was relatively low at 4.59. The mean of the importance values of the three-level indicators was also above 4.40, and the coefficient of variation for all indicators was less than 0.25. This shows that the third round of expert coordination was good, the views of the experts were highly uniform, and the indicators were unanimously endorsed by the experts. Through three rounds of Delphi expert consultations, an evaluation index system for senior healthcare executives' cultural values was formed. The scale contains 4 first-level, 13 second-level, and 39 third-level indicators (Table 5). Phase 4: Metric Weighting via Analytic Hierarchy Process Using AHP, the weights of the indicators at each level were analyzed, and the individual judgement matrices were tested for consistency until the final results were displayed (Table 5). The weightings of the primary indicators are, in descending order, patient safety (0.3679), humanistic care (0.2732), risk awareness (0.1981), and medical ethics (0.1609). The corresponding secondary and tertiary indicators also had higher shares. Among the secondary indicators, patient-centeredness (0.1910) had the highest weighting, followed by medical safety and security (0.1770) and humanistic systems (0.0877). Among the tertiary indicators, the establishment of an internal reporting system for non-punitive adverse events (0.0947) had the highest weighting, followed by the establishment of institutional safeguards reflecting patient-centeredness (0.0920) and the implementation of a medical safety system to improve overall hospital safety precautions (0.0823). This indicates the most important values among the cultural values of senior healthcare executives in terms of patient safety, where patient-centeredness and medical safety assurance are the most important dimensions, followed by humanistic care. Phase 5: Psychometric Validation and Confirmatory Framework Finalization The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the entire scale was 0.969 and that for the standardized items was 0.974, indicating that the scale is well structured and can reliably and effectively measure the cultural values of senior healthcare executives. The Cronbach's α coefficients of each dimension ranged from 0.927 to 0.937 and were all greater than 0.70, which proved that the scale had good internal consistency and reliability. The split-half reliability coefficient (Spearman–Brown coefficient) of the scale was 0.887, which also indicated that the value scale had good internal reliability. Spearman correlation coefficients for the total dimensional scores varied between 0.645 and 0.831. The coefficient refers to the change in all coefficients between 0.3 and 0.8. The absolute values of the Spearman correlation between dimensions ranged from 0.325 to 0.780 (Table 6), and all dimensions had correlation coefficients between 0.3 and 0.8, indicating that the correlation between dimensions reached an acceptable level. In addition, the Spearman correlations of each dimension with the total score were greater than those of the other dimensions. This indicates that the correlation coefficients of the total item scores were better.The questionnaire guide is provided in the attachment. Confirmatory factor analysis: Bartlett's test of sphericity and KMO value were used to determine the suitability for factor analysis. The factor analysis was considered suitable when the KMO value was > 0.8 and Bartlett's significance P was < 0.05. The KMO value for this study was 0.919, and the approximation of Bartlett's spherical test was equal to 10348.998 and 741 (P < 0.001), meeting the basic conditions for factor analysis. The CFA model fit indices were \(\:{\text{x}}^{2}/\text{d}\text{f}\:\) = 2.982 ( 0.90), goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.905 (> 0.90), Tucker Lewis index (TLI) = 0.850 (not up to the 0.9 level), and RMR = 0.010 (< 0.05). The fit index showed that the model was a good fit. Discussion In this study, we adopted the three-round Delphi method to construct a cultural value index system for senior healthcare executives. First, based on the full retrieval of domestic and foreign literature and interpretation of policy documents, this study initially constructed an expert consultation questionnaire through group discussions. After three rounds of repeated validation of expert consultation, experts reached a consensus to form a cultural value evaluation index system for senior healthcare executives and gained the weight of each index. By combining quantitative and qualitative methods, the cultural values scale was found to have high reliability and validity. Therefore, it can be used as a reliable and effective tool. The final version of the cultural values scale contained four first-level indicators, 13 dimensions, and 39 items. In considering which aspects of cultural values should be embodied, our team of experts developed four core indicators. According to the opinions of experts in the Delphi method, patient safety (0.3679) had the highest weight obtained using the AHP. The combination weight of the secondary indicator to which it belonged (“patient-centered,” [0.1910]) was also the highest; followed by medical security (0.1770). The World Health Organization uses the indicator “respecting patients’ participation in medical decision-making" to evaluate the quality of medical services in various countries [ 20 ]. Currently, many developed countries include "patient participation" as part of the law. France issued the Law of Bioethics in 1988 to protect patients' rights to information [ 21 ]. Germany established its first patient university in October 2006 to provide health education and patient empowerment [ 22 ]. The results of this study also lead to comparable conclusions. Therefore, in the process of reshaping the cultural values of senior healthcare executives in the future, the value of patient safety should be emphasized. Humanistic care is defined as attention to the needs of the human personality, spiritual development, and respect for human rights. In addition to providing necessary medical and technical services to patients, hospitals need to address their psychological, cultural, and health needs [ 23 – 26 ]. There are four dimensions under the indicator of humanistic care: humanistic spirit, humanistic literacy, humanistic system, and humanistic environment. This is a better and more comprehensive way to reflect on the values of senior healthcare executives. The occurrence of this new crown epidemic was the best manifestation of increased risk awareness. During the coronavirus disease pandemic, there were many medical malpractices due to the surge in the workload of doctors, who sometimes failed to meet basic medical needs [ 27 ]. Such tragic events could have been prevented if the leaders of our hospital had worked out in advance the various detailed procedures for seeing a doctor during the pandemic for both patients with fever and ordinary patients [ 28 – 29 ]. Therefore, hospital leaders must have a good risk awareness. When such a situation does not occur, a variety of alternatives should be prepared in advance to deal with such emergencies and prevent them from occurring. Finally, “medical ethics” scored the lowest. The discipline of "medical ethics" runs throughout the entire university career of medical students, and there are various ethical system norms in the professional careers of medical personnel. According to a cross-sectional study, many tertiary hospitals have established medical ethics review committees, but county-level hospitals lack awareness of medical ethics reviews, and there is no standardized ethics review committee [ 30 ]. Many hospital leaders are unsure about the ethical system norms in their own hospitals [ 31 – 32 ]. Therefore, senior healthcare executives should establish a standardized medical ethics review committee and standardize various ethical systems from their own perspective and not allow the medical ethics committee to become a decoration. The cultural value index system for senior healthcare executives constructed in this study included 4 first-level, 13 second-level, and 39 third level indicators. The Cronbach' \(\:{\alpha\:}\) coefficient is currently recognized as the best coefficient for measuring reliability; a coefficient of 0–1 and above 0.7 is suggestive of good reliability [ 33 ]. In this study, the Cronbach's coefficients of the total scale, humanistic care, medical ethics, risk awareness, and patient safety were 0.969, 0.897, 0.871, 0.858, and 0.873, respectively, indicating that the cultural value scale had high reliability. Before conducting the exploratory factor analysis, KMO and Bartlett sphericity tests were conducted. When the KMO value was > 0.5, and Bartlett sphericity test P was < 0.05, the questionnaire had structural validity, and the next step of exploratory factor analysis could be carried out [ 34 ]. The KMO value of this study was 0.919, and the approximate Bartlett sphericity test was equal to 10348.998 and 741 (P < 0.001), meeting the basic conditions for exploratory factor analysis. A total of 13 common factors were extracted, and the cumulative variance contribution rate of the overall variance was 88.219%, which was greater than 60% [ 35 – 38 ], indicating that the cultural values scale had high validity. Based on the results of the exploratory factor analysis, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted. In addition to the standard fit index (NFI), incremental fit index (IFI), and irregular fit index (TLI/NFI) [ 39 – 42 ], all other indicators met the adaptation standard except for the Akaike Information Criterion. The adjusted AGFI = 0.902, goodness-of-fit index = 0.905, and CFI = 0.911 were significantly correlated with the items (P < 0.001). Therefore, the fitting index of the model was good [ 43 – 47 ]. This study has several limitations that warrant consideration. First, the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) yielded suboptimal indicator loadings for several items. Although the sample size met statistical requirements for CFA, these results suggest potential measurement issues with the scale in the current context. Further validation with larger and more diverse samples is essential to establish the scale’s robustness and generalizability.Second, the use of convenience sampling—driven by the specific characteristics of the target population—may introduce selection bias and limit representativeness. Critically, the absence of township-level participants undermines the sample’s coverage of key socioeconomic and geographic strata. Consequently, findings may not be generalizable to rural or township populations, potentially affecting the external validity of the results. Conclusions The index system of cultural values of senior healthcare executives constructed in this study contains four primary, 13 secondary, and 39 tertiary indicators. The scale had high authority and scientific validity, good reliability and validity, and can be used as a tool to measure the cultural values of senior healthcare executives. This study can provide a reference basis for easing the doctor-patient relationship and improving the culture of patient safety. Abbreviations CFI Comparative fit index AGFI Adjusted goodness-of-fit index AHP Analytic hierarchy process CR Consistency ratio IFI Incremental fit index NFI Standard fit index CFA Confirmatory factor analysis CV Coefficient of variation Ca Judgment coefficient KMO Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin LOV List of Values Cs Familiarity coefficient Cr Authority coefficient Declarations Acknowledgments: We have reviewed and edited the output and assume full responsibility for the content of this publication. Funding This research was funded by grant number 2016JJA140327. The APC was funded by the Bagui Scholar Fund for Social Medicine and Health Service Management of Guangxi Province, China. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Ethics approval and consent to participate This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Medical Ethics Review Committee of Guilin Medical University (protocol code: 2021120101, approval date: December 1, 2021).All participants provided written informed consent to participate. Consent for publication Not applicable. Data availability The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request Authors ’contributions Conceptualization, X.LI., W.S., and Z.H.; methodology, X.LI.; software, X.LI.; validation, X.LI.; Y.Z., and H.F.; formal analysis, X.LI.; investigation, X.LI.; resources, X.LI.; data curation, X.LI. and H.F.; writing—original draft preparation, X.LI.; writing—review and editing, X.LI.; visualization, X.LI.; supervision, X.LI.; W.S., and Z.H.; project administration, X.LI.; funding acquisition, W.S. All authors have read and agreed to the publication of this version of the manuscript. References Roudijk, Bianca; Donders, Rogier; Stalmeier, Peep. Cultural values: can they explain self-reported health?. Quality of Life Research 2017; 26: 1531–1539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1512-x. Lewis, Gary J.; Kanai, Ryota; Bates, Timothy C.; Rees, Geraint. Moral values are associated with individual differences in regional brain volume. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2012; 24: 1657–1663. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00239. Daniel, Richard D.; Aneil K, Mishra. Toward a Theory of Organizational Culture and Effectiveness. Organization Science 1995; 6. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.2.204. Fritzsche, David J.; Oz, Effy. Personal values’ influence on the ethical dimension of decision making. Journal of Business Ethics 2007; 75: 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9256-5. Guay, Russell P.; Choi, Dongseop. To whom does Transformational leadership matter more? an examination of neurotic and introverted followers and their organizational citizenship behavior. Leadership Quarterly 2015; 26: 851–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.06.005. Hofstede, Geert. Culture's consequences: international differences in work-related value. London: Sage Publications; 1980. Schwartz, Shalom H.; Cieciuch, Jan; Vecchione, Michele; Davidov, Eldad; Fischer, Ronald; Beierlein, Constanze; Ramos, Alice; Verkasalo, Markku; Lönnqvist, Jan-Erik; Demirutku, Kursad; Dirilen-Gumus, Ozlem; Konty, Mark. Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2012; 103: 663–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029393. George, Michael C.; Athanassios, Krystallis. Organic consumers’ personal values research: Testing and validating the list of values (LOV) scale and implementing a value-based segmentation task. Food Quality and Preference 2005; 16: 585–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.01.003. Wang, Ying; Wang, Tiantian; Wang, Aimei; Chen, Shuyu; Jiao, Lina; Shi, Jiaqi; Feng, Xiaoyu; Meng, Kai. Identifying the competencies of China's paediatric residents: a modified Delphi method study. BMJ Open 2021; 11: e041741. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041741. Kalayci Önaç, Ayse; Birisçi, Tülay. Transformation of urban landscape value perception over time: a Delphi technique application. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 2019; 191: 741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7935-9. Graham, Benjamin; Regehr, Glenn; Wright, James G. Delphi as a method to establish consensus for diagnostic criteria. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2003; 56: 1150–1156. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00211-7. Sun, Zhuangqun. Medical Statistic, 3rd ed.; Beijing: People’s Medical Publishing House; 2010. Saaty, Thomas L. Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science 1986; 32: 841–855. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.7.841. Zeng, Guang; Hui, Liu. Modern epidemiological methods and application, Peking Medical University. Pecking Union Medical College Union Press; 1994. Cheng, Cuiyun; Liu, Yan; Wang, Rong. The test for Kendall’s coefficient of concordance conducted by SPSS. Journal of Taishan Medical College 2010; 31: 487–490. Cheng, Shi; Hu, Yijie; Pfaff, Holger; Lu, Changfu; Fu, Qiang; Wang, Li; Li, Dong; Xia, Shichang. The patient safety culture scale for Chinese primary health care institutions: development, validity and reliability. Journal of Patient Safety 2021; 17: 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000000733. Costa, Marcelle Fernandes. Health belief model for coronavirus infection risk determinants. Revista de Saúde Pública 2020; 54: 47. Lynn, Mary R. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research 1986; 35: 382–385. Oh, Won Oak; Yeom, Inyoung; Lim, Seung Hyun; Kim, Dong Seok; Shim, Kyung Won. The Moyamoya Health Behavior Scale for Adolescent Patients: measurement tool development and psychometric evaluation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2021; 18: 4064. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084064. Fang, Tingting; Du, Peng; Wang, Yuying; Chen, Danqing; Lu, Hong; Cheng, Huiling; Hu, Wei; Jiang, Dinghua; Wang, Wei. Role mismatch in medical decision-making participation is associated with anxiety and depression in family members of patients in the intensive care unit. Journal of Tropical Medicine 2022; 2022: 8027422. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8027422. Louët, Sabine. French bioethics turmoil. Nature Biotechnology 2011; 29: 560. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0711-560b. Blease, Charlotte; Fernandez, Lucia; Bell, Sigall K.; Delbanco, Tom; DesRoches, Catherine. Empowering patients and reducing inequities: is there potential in sharing clinical notes?. BMJ Quality & Safety 2020; 29: 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010490. Rogol, Alan D. Clinical and humanistic aspects of growth hormone deficiency and growth-related disorders. The American Journal of Managed Care 2011; 17 (Suppl 18): eS4–e10. Whitley, Brian K. In a language spoken and unspoken: nurturing our practice as humanistic clinicians. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 2012; 43: 973–979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.11.002. Watson, Jeanne C. Treatment failure in humanistic and experiential psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology 2011; 67: 1117–1128. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20849. Pettit, Michele L. An analysis of the doctor-patient relationship using Patch Adams. Journal of School Health 2008; 78: 234–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2008.00292.x. Aram, Shuaibu Saidu; Saalidong, Benedict Manaab; Opoku, Eric Owusu; Sam, Hingabong. Perceived risk of contracting COVID-19 among healthcare workers in Ghana: A cross-sectional study. Health Science Reports 2022; 5: e653. https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.653. Fujishiro, Kaori. Is perceived racial privilege associated with health? Findings from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Social Science & Medicine 2008; 68: 840–844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.12.007. Tao, Wenjing; Zeng, Wu; Yan, Lijing; Yang, Hui; Wen, Jin; Li, Wei. The health service capacity of primary health care in West China: different perspectives of physicians and their patients. BMC Health Services Research 2019; 19: 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-3964-x. Govindraj, Lakshmi; Santhosh, Seetharaman; Sunish, Shyamala C.; Gopalakrishnan, Anoop Velayudhan; Chandy, Sujith J.; Oommen, Viji; Fx, Mary Sherin. Effectiveness of teaching medical ethics to medical students on an online platform: An analysis of students' perceptions and feedback. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics 2022; : 32–38. https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2022.034. Chen, Min; Ye, Lipin; Weng, Yihan. Blended teaching of medical ethics during COVID-19: practice and reflection. BMC Medical Education 2022; 22: 361. doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03431-6. Lanphier, Edward. Public trust and medical ethics. Hastings Center Report 2022; 52: 58–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.1355. Wu, Ying; Dai, Jianbo; Chen, Xinyi; Xie, Tian; Han, Lu; Wu, Yali; Chen, Yan; Liu, Yan; Cai, Zilin; Zhang, Weiguang; Bai, Jing. Psychometric evaluation of the body understanding measure pregnancy scale Chinese version for pregnant Chinese women. Midwifery 2022; 112: 103394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2022.103394. Zhang, Tong; Yin, Changshuan; Geng, Yina; Zhou, Ying; Sun, Shusen; Tang, Fengyan. Development and validation of psychological contract scale for hospital pharmacists. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare 2020; 13: 1433–1442. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S270030. Arthur-Aidoo, Bernard Martins; Aigbavboa, Clinton Ohis; Thwala, Wellington Didibhuku. Exploratory factor analysis on drivers of firm’s growth among construction SMEs in Ghana. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development 2018; 10: 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2017.1380932. Liu, Li; Fang, Jie. Study on potential factors of patient satisfaction: based on exploratory factor analysis. Patient Preference and Adherence 2019; 13: 1983–1994. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S228073. Iantovics, László Barna; Rotar, Corina; Morar, Florin. Survey on establishing the optimal number of factors in exploratory factor analysis applied to data mining. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 2019; 9: e1294. https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1294. Jones, Martyn C.; Williams, Brian; Rattray, Janice; MacGillivray, Stephen; Baldie, Deborah; Abubakari, Abdul Rauf; Coyle, Joanne; Mackie, Susan; McKenna, Emma. Extending the assessment of patient-centredness in health care: Development of the updated Valuing Patients as Individuals Scale using exploratory factor analysis. Journal of Clinical Nursing 2018; 27: 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13845. Lee, Sung Eun; Dahinten, V. Susan. The enabling, enacting, and elaborating factors of safety culture associated with patient safety: a multilevel analysis. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 2020; 52: 544–552. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12585. Cheng, Shi; Hu, Yijie; Pfaff, Holger; Lu, Changfu; Fu, Qiang; Wang, Li; Li, Dong; Xia, Shichang. The patient safety culture scale for chinese primary health care institutions: development, validity and reliability. Journal of Patient Safety 2021; 17: 114-121. https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000000733. Monaca, Christian; Bestmann, Beate; Kattein, Mandy; Langner, Daniel; Müller, Henrik; Manser, Tanja. Assessing patients' perceptions of safety culture in the hospital setting: development and initial evaluation of the patients' perceptions of safety culture scale. Journal of Patient Safety 2020; 16: 90–97. https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000000436. Kagan, Ilya; Porat, Nurit; Barnoy, Sivia. The quality and safety culture in general hospitals: patients', physicians' and nurses' evaluation of its effect on patient satisfaction. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2019; 31: 261–268. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzy138. Jovanovic, Ana; Miller-Hodges, Eve; Castriota, Felice; Takyar, Surya; Howitt, Hannah; Ayodele, Olubunmi. A systematic literature review on the health-related quality of life and economic burden of Fabry disease. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 2024; 19: 181. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-024-03131-y. Drahos, Jennifer; Boateng-Kuffour, Alex; Calvert, Melanie; Valentine, Ashley; Mason, Amy; Li, Ning; Pakbaz, Zahra; Shah, Farrukh T.; Ainsworth, Nicholas; Martin, Antony P. Health-related quality of life and economic impacts in adults with sickle cell disease with recurrent vaso-occlusive crises: findings from a prospective longitudinal real-world survey. Quality of Life Research 2025; Apr 17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-025-03963-6. (Online ahead of print). Liu, Ying; Qiu, Shumin; Li, Haiyan; Chen, Caiyun; Yu, Ruihua; Yuan, Shanshan. Development and validation of the nurses' touch comfort evaluation scale in China. BMC Nursing 2025; 24: 171. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-025-02804-8. Hadar-Shoval, Doron; Asraf, Kfir; Mizrachi, Yarden; Haber, Yael; Elyoseph, Zohar. Assessing the alignment of large language models with human values for mental health integration: cross-sectional study using schwartz's theory of basic values. JMIR Mental Health 2024; 11: e55988. https://doi.org/10.2196/55988. Vecchione, Michele; Schwartz, Shalom H. Personal values and academic achievement. British Journal of Psychology 2022; 113: 630–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12555. Tables Tables 5 and 6 are available in the Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files TheOrganizationalCulturalValuesScaleforSeniorHealthcareExecutivesinChineseHospitals.docx Table5and6.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7309689","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":507920090,"identity":"19a46f79-c937-4c74-b335-8682547aef62","order_by":0,"name":"Xiangling LI","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ningxia integrated Chinese and western medicine hospital","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xiangling","middleName":"","lastName":"LI","suffix":""},{"id":507920091,"identity":"29d4e28d-c357-407b-8e61-15a86598ccf9","order_by":1,"name":"Wuxiang Shi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Guilin Medical University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wuxiang","middleName":"","lastName":"Shi","suffix":""},{"id":507920092,"identity":"9588f776-855e-4f78-9647-bf15f2ebc53a","order_by":2,"name":"Zhaoquan Huang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Guangxi Medical University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zhaoquan","middleName":"","lastName":"Huang","suffix":""},{"id":507920093,"identity":"933ba3ae-0fda-48f0-b3f6-baf0cd556bdb","order_by":3,"name":"Haitao Fan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ningxia integrated Chinese and western medicine hospital","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Haitao","middleName":"","lastName":"Fan","suffix":""},{"id":507920094,"identity":"afb887a6-5f03-4102-9c42-3fa8cc02e0de","order_by":4,"name":"Yue Zhang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ningxia integrated Chinese and western medicine hospital","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yue","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhang","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-08-06 12:23:11","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7309689/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7309689/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":90471191,"identity":"2436eb61-4e53-4e90-a818-58ecdc4aeb1e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-03 06:23:05","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":19293,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFlow chart of scale development\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7309689/v1/bbd6e7f1921bb36b08047c80.png"},{"id":90470607,"identity":"ca5d2525-0c61-41f1-85ce-c755cafcf37f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-03 06:15:05","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":14351,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePRISMA-compliant flow chart of literature screening and study inclusion in the scoping review\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7309689/v1/f72dcc29fe5a815de0555bac.png"},{"id":91670835,"identity":"0fe30a3f-b998-4576-a131-95f5f7b18d6f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-19 03:31:48","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":937289,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7309689/v1/32428722-4e8f-47c3-9130-ec86a7f2c5e6.pdf"},{"id":90470606,"identity":"d3429cbe-c1f3-4b0f-a36c-f0476ff5f096","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-03 06:15:05","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":17994,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"TheOrganizationalCulturalValuesScaleforSeniorHealthcareExecutivesinChineseHospitals.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7309689/v1/9df4c497c4d639ffe5695bfd.docx"},{"id":90471192,"identity":"e83ea626-572c-4206-a767-82d9212738cc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-03 06:23:05","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":29631,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table5and6.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7309689/v1/305eb27ad41faccfcac4dfe5.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Development and Validation of the Organizational Cultural Values Scale for Senior Healthcare Executives in Chinese Hospitals","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eValues are goals that transcend situations and meet needs. They play an important guiding role in a person's life and social relationships [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. A cultural value system is a unique set of perceptions and opinions that each society, organization, and individual acquires in the context of the larger environment in which they live. It acts as a universal implicit constraint on thoughts and behaviors. In 2013, Yang proposed that cultural values are common to the mainstream group in the current cultural context and are generally shared by other members. They are a set of values that individuals are taught through education and propaganda in the process of continuous social evolution, that form individual values [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn 1964, in the book \"Management Squared,\u0026rdquo; published by Mouton and Black, scholars of management at the University of Texas, it was mentioned that \"in reality, the style of enterprise leaders has a decisive effect on the business style of the company\" [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. Here, style refers to the cultural values of leaders. Numerous business management practices have shown that the cultural values upheld and promoted by a business leader not only influence and determine individual behavior but also affect the overall organizational behavior and the management and effectiveness of the organization. Fritzsche tested five hypotheses by modeling structural equations with 174 working professionals. Hypothesis 2 stated that an altruistic value structure is positively related to ethical behavior (R2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.33, P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) and has the largest path coefficient; thus, altruistic values have a positive influence on ethical decision-making. Regarding hypothesis 3, the value of structured self-improvement was negatively related to ethical behavior (R2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.22, P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Therefore, it can also be assumed that self-improvement values negatively impact ethical decision-making. The t values of the other hypotheses were not significant (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. Guay and Choi used a sample of 215 leaders and 1284 followers from 10 organizations. By building hierarchical linear models for leaders, they found that high levels of neuroticism were significantly correlated with organizational citizenship behavior (γ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.43, P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05); this interaction also significantly improved the fit of the model to the data (\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{\\text{x}}^{2}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e= 8.59, P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). Thus, they concluded that the development and motivation of transformational leaders could counteract neuroticism and introversion of followers and encourage them to exhibit organizational citizenship behaviors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe main people in charge of a hospital are the legal representative; proposer; implementer; and advocate of the hospital\u0026rsquo;s system, norms, and culture. They play an important role in the construction and development of hospitals. Their personal beliefs, pursuits, and standards for judging right and wrong inevitably affect the spirit, personality, and development of the hospital, and their cultural values influence and even determine the behavior, management, and effectiveness of the entire organization.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePatient safety culture is part of hospital safety culture; as such, the cultural values upheld by the director are very important influencing factors. Therefore, evaluating the cultural values of hospital leaders is important for patient safety. Many scales exist for measuring the cultural values of leaders in nonmedical fields. For example: from a managerial perspective, in 1980, the Dutch literary scholar, Hofstede, divided cultural values into four dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/femininity, and collectivism/individualism [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. More than 10 years later, the international universal applicability of the scale was fully considered and was made applicable in the Chinese national context. Chinese scholar, Mike Peng, used the questionnaire method to study several countries around the world and finally identified a fifth dimension (long-term orientation/short-term orientation). Schwartz classified individual cultural values into four dimensions by studying cultural practices around the world: conservatism, change acceptance, transcendence, and self-reinforcement, and developed the final Schwartz Value Survey scale [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. The List of Values (LOV) scale was further developed by Kahle, based on previous studies by Maslow (1954), Rokeach (1973), and Feather (1975)[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. The LOV scale contains nine individual value entries that can be divided into five motivational domains: self-directedness (self-respect and achievement of aspirations), achievement (being respected), hedonism (enjoyment and pursuit, excitement), maturity (sense of belonging and harmonious interpersonal climate), and security (the need to feel safe) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. However, scales measuring the cultural values of senior healthcare executives in the medical field are rarely reported.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe cultural value orientations of senior healthcare executives towards humanistic care, medical ethics, risk awareness, and patient safety may affect patient safety culture. Therefore, in this study, we adopted the Delphi method to develop a cultural value scale for senior healthcare executives. We also explored new mechanisms and paths to improve patient safety by encouraging the executives to reshape their cultural values, with patient safety as a core concept. Emphasizing the importance of patient safety culture and behavioral reengineering, through internalization to all employees, organizations, and systems, can help improve doctor-patient relationship and establish methods to achieve higher level of patient safety.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e We conducted a literature review and used the Delphi method and hierarchical analysis to design a system of cultural value indicators for senior healthcare executives. First, initial scale entries were constructed using a literature review method. Three rounds of the Delphi method were conducted to anonymously collect expert opinions. After each round, the collected questionnaires were analyzed, organized, and presented for a new round of expert consultation until there was no disagreement in the expert opinion [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. Finally, the reliability and validity of the scale were measured by calculating the weight of each indicator using hierarchical analysis and conducting a pre-experiment on the scale and shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;1\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePhase 1:Structured Rapid Evidence Synthesis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e We conducted an extensive literature review to develop the initial metrics. Our team searched literature repositories such as CNKI, the Wanfang database, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Willey, Elsevier, PubMed, and Springer Link. The search terms included \"patient/patient safety culture,\" \"patient safety,\u0026rdquo; \"cultural values,\u0026rdquo; \"Hospital Culture,\u0026rdquo; \"entrepreneurial/leadership cultural values,\" and \"cultural values scale.\u0026rdquo; The first search was conducted in December 2022and was updated in February 2024. Based on the goal of maximizing the social benefits of the hospital, the final index system was more consistent with the cultural values of the director. We screened and included studies and guidelines involving leaders of hospital departments, interventions related to patient safety culture, screening and development of indicators related to hospital culture interventions, and those published in English and Chinese. The inclusion criteria were based on indicators, and after several rounds of group discussions, we formed a preliminary framework of value scale indicators for senior healthcare executives, which comprised four areas: humanistic care, medical ethics, worrying awareness, and cherishing life, containing four primary, 13 secondary, and 39 tertiary indicators.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePhase 2: Iterative Framework Development\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAfter thorough expert consultation, the questionnaire was divided into four parts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first part was the questionnaire description section, which mainly introduced the meaning and purpose of the questionnaire and stated the instructions for filling out and collecting the form.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second part contained questions on basic information of the experts, which mainly included the age, education, title, postgraduate supervisor qualification, work nature, and the basis of judgement on the evaluation index of hospital cultural values, whether involved in hospital management time function work or research work.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe third part comprised questions regarding the indicator system of cultural values of senior healthcare executives: it mainly contained the connotation of specific indicators, the importance and operability of each indicator, experts\u0026rsquo; familiarity with each indicator, and their opinions on the modification of reference indicators. Under each indicator there were spaces for experts to suggest indicators to be added or deleted.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe fourth part contained questions on the weight coefficients of the index system, which mainly comprised specific scoring criteria for the weight of each index and a comparison of the two within the same indicator level.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAn expert panel was formed to evaluate the indicators. Consultation questionnaires were distributed and collected via email and letters. The ideal number of participants for the Delphi method is 10\u0026ndash;20, with three consecutive rounds of questionnaire screening [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Thus, we created a panel of 20 experts who had bachelor's degrees or higher, experienced in hospital management practice and research work, and provided informed consent for voluntary participation. We excluded those who did not respond to the consultation questionnaire within the specified time and those who refused to participate.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePhase 3:Structured e-Delphi (dup: abstract ?)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e We used the Delphi technique to determine the scale structure of the cultural values of contemporary senior healthcare executives by considering the opinions of experts from different fields focusing on humanistic care, medical ethics, risk awareness, and patient safety. The Delphi technique is a data collection tool that researchers use to get the perspective of people with a voice in the problem-solving process. It has three basic features: confidentiality of participation, controlled analysis of group responses, and controlled feedback [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. The principles of anonymity, feedback, and statistics were strictly followed. The opinions of the participating experts were kept confidential to improve their responding confidence and to avoid unconditional agreement with the opinions of other well-known experts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe consultation questionnaire was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, with experts scoring each indicator according to its importance and operability (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly disagree, 2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;agree, 3\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;average, 4\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;agree, 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly agree). Each entry was followed by a blank space for the experts to provide open-ended comments and corresponding reasons. Statistical analyses of the data collected at the end of each round of the study were performed. According to the principle of index screening for the collected consultation questionnaires, the indexes with mean importance and feasibility\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;4.0 and coefficient of variation\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.25 were retained; the indexes with mean importance and feasibility\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;4.0 and coefficient of variation\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;0.25 were deleted. If only one of the inclusion criteria for importance mean and coefficient of variation was satisfied, or if all of them were not satisfied, the indicators were added, modified, combined, and deleted after a group discussion with reference to the experts' revision. The results of the analysis conducted at the end of each round were communicated to the participants in the following successive rounds of questionnaire analysis to inform them about the general trends. This enabled the participants to reexamine their ideas by comparing them with the results, methods, and perspectives presented to them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe coefficient of the expert positivity degree was expressed using the questionnaire recovery rate. A coefficient of expert degree\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;70% indicates that the enthusiasm of experts is high, and that the study is of certain research significance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe expert authority coefficient (Cr) is based on the average value of the judgment coefficient (Ca) and familiarity coefficient (Cs); that is, Cr = (Ca\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Cs)/2. When Cr\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;0.70, it is considered that the authority of experts and the reliability of prediction is high [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCa is judged based on four aspects: work experience, theoretical analysis, peer knowledge, and expert intuition, and is classified according to three levels: large, small, and medium. The specific judgement criteria were work experience (degree of influence on expert judgement: large\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.5, medium\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.4, small\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.3), theoretical analysis (degree of influence on expert judgement: large\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.3, medium\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.2, small\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.1), reference to domestic and international literature (degree of influence on expert judgement: large\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.1, medium\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.1, small\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.1), and intuition (degree of influence on expert judgement: large\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.1, medium\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.1, small\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.1) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCs indicates the expert's familiarity with the content1 of the consultation and is rated on a 5-point Likert scale with the following criteria: very familiar\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, familiar\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.8, more familiar\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.6, average\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.4, and unfamiliar\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.2.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuantitative table of the basis for expert indicator judgements\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eJudgement basis\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDegree of influence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003elarge\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003emedium\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003esmall\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePractical experience\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTheoretical analysis\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeer understanding\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpert intuition\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe coefficient of the degree of coordination of expert opinion is primarily a way of judging the consistency of experts' evaluations of each indicator and whether there are large differences or identifying highly coordinated experts and those with heterogeneous opinions. It generally includes Kendall\u0026rsquo;s W coordination coefficient (W) and the coefficient of variation (CV) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. W generally fluctuates in the range of 0.5. In this study, W was considered statistically significant at P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05. The closer W was to 0.5, the higher the level of expert coordination and the stronger the agreement with expert opinion.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePhase 4: Metric Weighting via Analytic Hierarchy Process\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe AHP is based on the idea of decomposing complex problems into several simpler elements [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. This involves simplifying the complex problem, comparing the advantages and disadvantages of different solutions, making a sublinear prediction of the solution, and finally selecting the best solution based on the data [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. We used AHP to define the weight of each cultural value index. First, we established the target tree, stratified the entire index system, and established a target tree of cultural values. Then, we built the matrix; the judgment matrix of pairwise comparison was constructed using the hierarchical structure of the target tree (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, the index weight and the weights of the indicators at each level were calculated, and a consistency test was performed. If the consistency ratio (CR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;CI/RI) was less than 0.1, the judgment matrix was considered to have a satisfactory consistency. Otherwise, the judgment matrix was readjusted. The decision process of the expert group was implemented using the YAAHP software.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEvaluation criteria for the target tree at all levels.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMarks\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelative importance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterpretation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEqual importance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA and B are equally important.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSlight importance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA is slightly more important than B.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBasic importance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA is more important than B.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStrong importance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA is strongly more important than B.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAbsolute importance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA is absolutely more important than B.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2,4,6,8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe median of two adjacent levels\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results of A and B are in the middle of the above results\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCountdown\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs mentioned above\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eComparison of the importance of B and A\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePhase 5: Psychometric Validation and Confirmatory Framework Finalization\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA formal survey was conducted at 13 public hospitals in Guilin, Guangxi. Using a whole-group sampling method, the survey included the secretaries, directors, and vice presidents of each hospital (leaders with administrative decision-making power). Formal questionnaires were distributed to the office managers of each hospital, who then distributed them to hospital-level leaders and collected the questionnaires. Overall, 100 questionnaires were distributed, of which 94 were collected and validated.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eReliability and validity analyses were conducted using the 39 entries of the scale.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α coefficient is the best coefficient for reliability: the larger the coefficient value, the better the consistency and reliability. Its value ranges from 0 to 1, and a coefficient value above 0.7, indicates good reliability [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. Regarding the split-half reliability coefficients, items were divided into two equal halves based on the parity of item numbers. The half reliability coefficient should be greater than 0.70 to achieve an acceptable level [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. Higher split-half reliability coefficients indicate better scale reliability and internal consistency. The correlation coefficient between the two groups was then calculated, and the Spearman\u0026ndash;Brown formula was applied to estimate the reliability of the entire scale.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eValidity analysis generally includes content and structural validity. Content validity is mainly used to measure the appropriateness and consistency of the content using the expert consultation method, where the experts determine whether the content of the consultation scale is applicable. The construct validity was analyzed using correlation and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). If the Spearman correlation coefficient of the dimension-total is between 0.3 and 0.8, the correlation coefficient between dimensions is less than 0.8, and the item-total score is between 0.3 and 0.8, it can be inferred that the scale has good correlation and discrimination [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. If the Kaiser\u0026ndash;Meir\u0026ndash;Olkin (KMO) value is above 0.8, and the Bartlett's sphericity test score is less than 0.5, there is a significant difference between the entries, indicating that the data can be used for factor analysis [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePhase 1:Structured Rapid Evidence Synthesis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eDuring the initial search, 780 records were identified, of which 20 underwent full-text screening and 15 met the inclusion criteria for this review (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). These articles described a range of methods used to develop research scales. Multiple approaches were employed to construct and refine the framework, including: 40% of studies utilizing expert panels, 30% through key informant interviews, 30% involving stakeholder participation (in the form of face-to-face meetings, email communication, and questionnaires), and 25% adopting the Delphi methodology.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePhase 2: Iterative Framework Development\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e Following a literature review and discussions within the research team, an initial index system for hospital directors' cultural values was preliminarily constructed. This system comprised 4 first-level indicators (Humanistic Care, Medical Ethics, Sense of Urgency, and Value of Life), 13 second-level indicators (Humanistic Spirit, Humanistic Institution, Humanistic Literacy, Humanistic Realm, Medical Ethics Construction, Medical Style Construction, Humanitarianism, Consciousness of Active Cognition, Critical Awareness of Potential Risks, Scientific Judgment Awareness, Quality of Life, Life Expectancy, and Medical Safety), and 35 items, forming the initial item pool for the Hospital Directors' Cultural Values Scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePhase 3:Structured e-Delphi\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, 20 experts with different work experiences in teaching and research, administration (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;18), and business technology (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2) were invited to participate in the expert consultation. One expert failed to respond to the questionnaire within the required time frame; 19 experts met the inclusion criteria. The 19 experts were from 11 provinces and cities, including Beijing (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1), Nanjing (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3), Wuhan (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2), Hangzhou (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2), Jinan (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1), Sichuan (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2), Weifang (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2), Hefei (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2), Harbin (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3), and Hohhot (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1). The mean age (mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;standard deviation) was 54.7\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.9 years, and all of them had postgraduate degrees or higher. Among them, two had master degrees (10.5%) and 17 had PhDs (89.5%). All experts involved in this consultation participated in hospital management practices and research work. There were 18 experts with senior titles (94.7%) and one with an associate title (5.3%) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpert personal characteristics (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;19).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCharacteristics\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eClassification\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePercentage (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSex\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e68.42\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e31.58\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAge (years)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e41\u0026ndash;50\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26.32\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e51\u0026ndash;60\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e68.42\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e61\u0026ndash;70\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.26\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEducation level\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMaster's degree\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.53\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDoctoral degree\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e89.47\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProfession\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeaching and Research\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e94.74\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdministration\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21.05\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBusiness Technology\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.53\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOthers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProfessional title\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntermediate title\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDeputy senior title\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.26\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSenior professional title\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e94.74\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWorking years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u0026ndash;19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.53\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20\u0026ndash;29\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e42.11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30\u0026ndash;39\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e42.11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.26\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipation in hospital management practice and research management practice\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the process of expert consultation, the response rate was 95% (20/19) in the first round, and 100% (19/19) in the second and third rounds. One expert did not respond within the specified time. All questionnaires recovered were valid, with an efficiency rate of 100%. The authority coefficients of the experts in the three rounds were 0.86, 0.87, and 0.88, indicating that the experts involved in this consultation had high authority. The expert coordination coefficients (W) of the importance level indicators in the first round were 0.024, 0.095, and 0.112, and the W values of feasibility were 0.026, 0.155, and 0.309, respectively. The W values of the importance indicators in the second round were 0.090, 0.108, and 0.141, and the W values of feasibility were 0.044, 0.254, and 0.330, respectively. The W values for the importance level indicators in the third round were 0.115, 0.225, and 0.206, and the W values for feasibility were 0.052, 0.271, and 0.363, respectively. After three rounds of expert consultation, the W-values of importance and operability for each level of indicator gradually increased, fluctuating around 0.5, and the differences between these changes were statistically significant (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). The coefficients of the three coordination levels are listed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExpert opinion coordination coefficient consistency test results\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"11\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c11\" colnum=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRound\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDegree\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirst grade indexes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecond level indicator\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThird grade indexes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKendall\u0026rsquo;sW\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{\\text{x}}^{2}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKendall\u0026rsquo;sW\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{\\text{x}}^{2}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKendall\u0026rsquo;sW\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{\\text{x}}^{2}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eImportance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.024\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.291\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.731\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.095\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21.609\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.042\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.112\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e81.148\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFeasibility\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.026\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.500\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.682\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.155\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e33.479\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.309\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e223.316\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eImportance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.090\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.118\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.163\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.108\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21.453\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.029\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.141\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e81.492\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFeasibility\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.044\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.524\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.471\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.254\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50.229\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.330\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e190.187\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eImportance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.115\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.563\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.087\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.225\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e48.526\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.206\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e105.320\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFeasibility\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.052\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.828\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.419\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.271\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e61.780\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.363\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e185.677\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"11\"\u003e3.3 Delphi Method for Indicator Screening Process\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results of the first round of expert consultation were analyzed; the mean scores of the important values of two secondary indicators, quality of life and life expectancy, were lower than 4 and the coefficient of variation was higher than 0.25. Three indicators i.e. preparedness, more than less strong, and less than not strong, were used to understand the latest medical situation at home and abroad and the quality of life and life expectancy of general diseases and special patients.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBased on the average score of the important values of each index in the first round and the qualitative revision opinions of the experts, we made three types of modifications to the expert consultation questionnaire in the first round. (1) Deletion: According to the screening principle, the average score of the important values was lower than 4 and the coefficient of variation was higher than 0.25, following the expert's qualitative revision opinions, five secondary and nine tertiary indicators were deleted. (2) Modification: For the second-level indicators, the construction of medical ethics was merged. The descriptions of the three second level and five third level indicators were modified to express the meaning of the indicators more clearly and accurately. (3) Increase: Since the experts of the secondary indicators were aware of the primary indicators\u0026rsquo; distress, it was believed that they should not only stay conscious but also reflect on whether they have taken actions to control risks and reduce medical errors and accidents. Therefore, after discussions with the research group, four secondary indicators were added: awareness of risk monitoring and early warning, awareness of risk decision-making, handling mechanisms of sudden medical adverse events, and learning optimization mechanisms. The three-level indicators were also reconstructed by adding 11 indicators.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAfter sorting and statistically analyzing the results of the first round of expert consultation, the questionnaire was revised, and the second round of expert consultation was conducted. The mean of the importance values of the four first-level indicators was above 4.50 points; the mean of the importance values of the secondary indicators was above four points; only one of the three-level indicators had an importance value mean below four points, and the coefficient of variation was above 0.25. The indicator is a positive response to risk, does not evade it, and is not a prevaricate.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this study, the following three types of modifications were made to the second round of expert consultation questionnaire: (1) Deletion: a one third-level indicator was deleted because the mean score of important values was lower than 4 and the coefficient of variation was higher than 0.25 and because of the qualitative modification opinions of the experts; (2) Modification: experts generally believe that the \u0026ldquo;sense of urgency\u0026rdquo; in the first-level indicators should be revised to \u0026ldquo;risk awareness\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;life attention\u0026rdquo; should be revised to \u0026ldquo;patient safety\u0026rdquo;; revise the statement description of 1 second-level indicator and 10 third-level indicators to clearly express the meaning of the indicators. (3) Increase: an increase in one secondary index, \u0026ldquo;medical ethics review system\u0026rdquo; corresponded to an increase in four tertiary indicators.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe mean values of the four indicators in the third round were above 4.77 points; the average results of the important values of the secondary indicators were above 4.70, and that for only one indicator, \u0026ldquo;learning optimization consciousness,\u0026rdquo; was relatively low at 4.59. The mean of the importance values of the three-level indicators was also above 4.40, and the coefficient of variation for all indicators was less than 0.25. This shows that the third round of expert coordination was good, the views of the experts were highly uniform, and the indicators were unanimously endorsed by the experts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThrough three rounds of Delphi expert consultations, an evaluation index system for senior healthcare executives' cultural values was formed. The scale contains 4 first-level, 13 second-level, and 39 third-level indicators (Table\u0026nbsp;5).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePhase 4: Metric Weighting via Analytic Hierarchy Process\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsing AHP, the weights of the indicators at each level were analyzed, and the individual judgement matrices were tested for consistency until the final results were displayed (Table\u0026nbsp;5). The weightings of the primary indicators are, in descending order, patient safety (0.3679), humanistic care (0.2732), risk awareness (0.1981), and medical ethics (0.1609). The corresponding secondary and tertiary indicators also had higher shares. Among the secondary indicators, patient-centeredness (0.1910) had the highest weighting, followed by medical safety and security (0.1770) and humanistic systems (0.0877). Among the tertiary indicators, the establishment of an internal reporting system for non-punitive adverse events (0.0947) had the highest weighting, followed by the establishment of institutional safeguards reflecting patient-centeredness (0.0920) and the implementation of a medical safety system to improve overall hospital safety precautions (0.0823). This indicates the most important values among the cultural values of senior healthcare executives in terms of patient safety, where patient-centeredness and medical safety assurance are the most important dimensions, followed by humanistic care.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePhase 5: Psychometric Validation and Confirmatory Framework Finalization\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the entire scale was 0.969 and that for the standardized items was 0.974, indicating that the scale is well structured and can reliably and effectively measure the cultural values of senior healthcare executives. The Cronbach's α coefficients of each dimension ranged from 0.927 to 0.937 and were all greater than 0.70, which proved that the scale had good internal consistency and reliability. The split-half reliability coefficient (Spearman\u0026ndash;Brown coefficient) of the scale was 0.887, which also indicated that the value scale had good internal reliability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpearman correlation coefficients for the total dimensional scores varied between 0.645 and 0.831. The coefficient refers to the change in all coefficients between 0.3 and 0.8. The absolute values of the Spearman correlation between dimensions ranged from 0.325 to 0.780 (Table\u0026nbsp;6), and all dimensions had correlation coefficients between 0.3 and 0.8, indicating that the correlation between dimensions reached an acceptable level. In addition, the Spearman correlations of each dimension with the total score were greater than those of the other dimensions. This indicates that the correlation coefficients of the total item scores were better.The questionnaire guide is provided in the attachment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eConfirmatory factor analysis: Bartlett's test of sphericity and KMO value were used to determine the suitability for factor analysis. The factor analysis was considered suitable when the KMO value was \u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.8 and Bartlett's significance P was \u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05. The KMO value for this study was 0.919, and the approximation of Bartlett's spherical test was equal to 10348.998 and 741 (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), meeting the basic conditions for factor analysis. The CFA model fit indices were \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{\\text{x}}^{2}/\\text{d}\\text{f}\\:\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e= 2.982 (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;3), root mean square error of approximation\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.097 (fit validity general), comparative fit index (CFI)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.911 (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.90), goodness-of-fit index (GFI)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.905 (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.90), Tucker Lewis index (TLI)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.850 (not up to the 0.9 level), and RMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.010 (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). The fit index showed that the model was a good fit.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn this study, we adopted the three-round Delphi method to construct a cultural value index system for senior healthcare executives. First, based on the full retrieval of domestic and foreign literature and interpretation of policy documents, this study initially constructed an expert consultation questionnaire through group discussions. After three rounds of repeated validation of expert consultation, experts reached a consensus to form a cultural value evaluation index system for senior healthcare executives and gained the weight of each index. By combining quantitative and qualitative methods, the cultural values scale was found to have high reliability and validity. Therefore, it can be used as a reliable and effective tool. The final version of the cultural values scale contained four first-level indicators, 13 dimensions, and 39 items.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn considering which aspects of cultural values should be embodied, our team of experts developed four core indicators. According to the opinions of experts in the Delphi method, patient safety (0.3679) had the highest weight obtained using the AHP. The combination weight of the secondary indicator to which it belonged (\u0026ldquo;patient-centered,\u0026rdquo; [0.1910]) was also the highest; followed by medical security (0.1770). The World Health Organization uses the indicator \u0026ldquo;respecting patients\u0026rsquo; participation in medical decision-making\" to evaluate the quality of medical services in various countries [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. Currently, many developed countries include \"patient participation\" as part of the law. France issued the Law of Bioethics in 1988 to protect patients' rights to information [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. Germany established its first patient university in October 2006 to provide health education and patient empowerment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. The results of this study also lead to comparable conclusions. Therefore, in the process of reshaping the cultural values of senior healthcare executives in the future, the value of patient safety should be emphasized.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHumanistic care is defined as attention to the needs of the human personality, spiritual development, and respect for human rights. In addition to providing necessary medical and technical services to patients, hospitals need to address their psychological, cultural, and health needs [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR24 CR25\" citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. There are four dimensions under the indicator of humanistic care: humanistic spirit, humanistic literacy, humanistic system, and humanistic environment. This is a better and more comprehensive way to reflect on the values of senior healthcare executives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe occurrence of this new crown epidemic was the best manifestation of increased risk awareness. During the coronavirus disease pandemic, there were many medical malpractices due to the surge in the workload of doctors, who sometimes failed to meet basic medical needs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. Such tragic events could have been prevented if the leaders of our hospital had worked out in advance the various detailed procedures for seeing a doctor during the pandemic for both patients with fever and ordinary patients [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. Therefore, hospital leaders must have a good risk awareness. When such a situation does not occur, a variety of alternatives should be prepared in advance to deal with such emergencies and prevent them from occurring.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, \u0026ldquo;medical ethics\u0026rdquo; scored the lowest. The discipline of \"medical ethics\" runs throughout the entire university career of medical students, and there are various ethical system norms in the professional careers of medical personnel. According to a cross-sectional study, many tertiary hospitals have established medical ethics review committees, but county-level hospitals lack awareness of medical ethics reviews, and there is no standardized ethics review committee [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. Many hospital leaders are unsure about the ethical system norms in their own hospitals [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. Therefore, senior healthcare executives should establish a standardized medical ethics review committee and standardize various ethical systems from their own perspective and not allow the medical ethics committee to become a decoration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe cultural value index system for senior healthcare executives constructed in this study included 4 first-level, 13 second-level, and 39 third level indicators. The Cronbach'\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{\\alpha\\:}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e coefficient is currently recognized as the best coefficient for measuring reliability; a coefficient of 0\u0026ndash;1 and above 0.7 is suggestive of good reliability [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]. In this study, the Cronbach's coefficients of the total scale, humanistic care, medical ethics, risk awareness, and patient safety were 0.969, 0.897, 0.871, 0.858, and 0.873, respectively, indicating that the cultural value scale had high reliability. Before conducting the exploratory factor analysis, KMO and Bartlett sphericity tests were conducted. When the KMO value was \u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.5, and Bartlett sphericity test P was \u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05, the questionnaire had structural validity, and the next step of exploratory factor analysis could be carried out [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e]. The KMO value of this study was 0.919, and the approximate Bartlett sphericity test was equal to 10348.998 and 741 (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), meeting the basic conditions for exploratory factor analysis. A total of 13 common factors were extracted, and the cumulative variance contribution rate of the overall variance was 88.219%, which was greater than 60% [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR36 CR37\" citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e], indicating that the cultural values scale had high validity. Based on the results of the exploratory factor analysis, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted. In addition to the standard fit index (NFI), incremental fit index (IFI), and irregular fit index (TLI/NFI) [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR40 CR41\" citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e], all other indicators met the adaptation standard except for the Akaike Information Criterion. The adjusted AGFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.902, goodness-of-fit index\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.905, and CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.911 were significantly correlated with the items (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). Therefore, the fitting index of the model was good [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR44 CR45 CR46\" citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study has several limitations that warrant consideration. First, the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) yielded suboptimal indicator loadings for several items. Although the sample size met statistical requirements for CFA, these results suggest potential measurement issues with the scale in the current context. Further validation with larger and more diverse samples is essential to establish the scale\u0026rsquo;s robustness and generalizability.Second, the use of convenience sampling\u0026mdash;driven by the specific characteristics of the target population\u0026mdash;may introduce selection bias and limit representativeness. Critically, the absence of township-level participants undermines the sample\u0026rsquo;s coverage of key socioeconomic and geographic strata. Consequently, findings may not be generalizable to rural or township populations, potentially affecting the external validity of the results.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe index system of cultural values of senior healthcare executives constructed in this study contains four primary, 13 secondary, and 39 tertiary indicators. The scale had high authority and scientific validity, good reliability and validity, and can be used as a tool to measure the cultural values of senior healthcare executives. This study can provide a reference basis for easing the doctor-patient relationship and improving the culture of patient safety.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCFI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComparative fit index\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAGFI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdjusted goodness-of-fit index\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAHP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnalytic hierarchy process\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConsistency ratio\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIFI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncremental fit index\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNFI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandard fit index\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCFA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConfirmatory factor analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCoefficient of variation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJudgment coefficient\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKMO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKaiser\u0026ndash;Meyer\u0026ndash;Olkin\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLOV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eList of Values\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFamiliarity coefficient\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCr\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAuthority coefficient\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe have reviewed and edited the output and assume full responsibility for the content of this publication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research was funded by grant number 2016JJA140327. The APC was funded by the Bagui Scholar Fund for Social Medicine and Health Service Management of Guangxi Province, China. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Medical Ethics Review Committee of Guilin Medical University (protocol code: 2021120101, approval date: December 1, 2021).All participants provided written informed consent to participate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026rsquo;contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Conceptualization, X.LI., W.S., and Z.H.; methodology, X.LI.; software, X.LI.; validation, X.LI.; Y.Z., and H.F.; formal analysis, X.LI.; investigation, X.LI.; resources, X.LI.; data curation, X.LI. and H.F.; writing\u0026mdash;original draft preparation, X.LI.; writing\u0026mdash;review and editing, X.LI.; visualization, X.LI.; supervision, X.LI.; W.S., and Z.H.; project administration, X.LI.; funding acquisition, W.S. All authors have read and agreed to the publication of this version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoudijk, Bianca; Donders, Rogier; Stalmeier, Peep. Cultural values: can they explain self-reported health?. Quality of Life Research 2017; 26: 1531\u0026ndash;1539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1512-x.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLewis, Gary J.; Kanai, Ryota; Bates, Timothy C.; Rees, Geraint. Moral values are associated with individual differences in regional brain volume. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2012; 24: 1657\u0026ndash;1663. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00239.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDaniel, Richard D.; Aneil K, Mishra. Toward a Theory of Organizational Culture and Effectiveness. Organization Science 1995; 6. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.2.204.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFritzsche, David J.; Oz, Effy. Personal values\u0026rsquo; influence on the ethical dimension of decision making. Journal of Business Ethics 2007; 75: 335\u0026ndash;343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9256-5.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuay, Russell P.; Choi, Dongseop. To whom does Transformational leadership matter more? an examination of neurotic and introverted followers and their organizational citizenship behavior. Leadership Quarterly 2015; 26: 851\u0026ndash;862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.06.005.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHofstede, Geert. Culture\u0026apos;s consequences: international differences in work-related value. London: Sage Publications; 1980.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchwartz, Shalom H.; Cieciuch, Jan; Vecchione, Michele; Davidov, Eldad; Fischer, Ronald; Beierlein, Constanze; Ramos, Alice; Verkasalo, Markku; L\u0026ouml;nnqvist, Jan-Erik; Demirutku, Kursad; Dirilen-Gumus, Ozlem; Konty, Mark. Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2012; 103: 663\u0026ndash;688. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029393.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeorge, Michael C.; Athanassios, Krystallis. Organic consumers\u0026rsquo; personal values research: Testing and validating the list of values (LOV) scale and implementing a value-based segmentation task. Food Quality and Preference 2005; 16: 585\u0026ndash;599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.01.003.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, Ying; Wang, Tiantian; Wang, Aimei; Chen, Shuyu; Jiao, Lina; Shi, Jiaqi; Feng, Xiaoyu; Meng, Kai. Identifying the competencies of China\u0026apos;s paediatric residents: a modified Delphi method study. BMJ Open 2021; 11: e041741. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041741.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKalayci \u0026Ouml;na\u0026ccedil;, Ayse; Biris\u0026ccedil;i, T\u0026uuml;lay. Transformation of urban landscape value perception over time: a Delphi technique application. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 2019; 191: 741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7935-9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGraham, Benjamin; Regehr, Glenn; Wright, James G. Delphi as a method to establish consensus for diagnostic criteria. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2003; 56: 1150\u0026ndash;1156. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00211-7.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSun, Zhuangqun. Medical Statistic, 3rd ed.; Beijing: People\u0026rsquo;s Medical Publishing House; 2010.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaaty, Thomas L. Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science 1986; 32: 841\u0026ndash;855. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.7.841.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZeng, Guang; Hui, Liu. Modern epidemiological methods and application, Peking Medical University. Pecking Union Medical College Union Press; 1994.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheng, Cuiyun; Liu, Yan; Wang, Rong. The test for Kendall\u0026rsquo;s coefficient of concordance conducted by SPSS. Journal of Taishan Medical College 2010; 31: 487\u0026ndash;490.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheng, Shi; Hu, Yijie; Pfaff, Holger; Lu, Changfu; Fu, Qiang; Wang, Li; Li, Dong; Xia, Shichang. The patient safety culture scale for Chinese primary health care institutions: development, validity and reliability. Journal of Patient Safety 2021; 17: 114\u0026ndash;121. https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000000733.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCosta, Marcelle Fernandes. Health belief model for coronavirus infection risk determinants. Revista de Sa\u0026uacute;de P\u0026uacute;blica 2020; 54: 47.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLynn, Mary R. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research 1986; 35: 382\u0026ndash;385.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOh, Won Oak; Yeom, Inyoung; Lim, Seung Hyun; Kim, Dong Seok; Shim, Kyung Won. The Moyamoya Health Behavior Scale for Adolescent Patients: measurement tool development and psychometric evaluation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2021; 18: 4064. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084064.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFang, Tingting; Du, Peng; Wang, Yuying; Chen, Danqing; Lu, Hong; Cheng, Huiling; Hu, Wei; Jiang, Dinghua; Wang, Wei. Role mismatch in medical decision-making participation is associated with anxiety and depression in family members of patients in the intensive care unit. Journal of Tropical Medicine 2022; 2022: 8027422. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8027422.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLou\u0026euml;t, Sabine. French bioethics turmoil. Nature Biotechnology 2011; 29: 560. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0711-560b.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlease, Charlotte; Fernandez, Lucia; Bell, Sigall K.; Delbanco, Tom; DesRoches, Catherine. Empowering patients and reducing inequities: is there potential in sharing clinical notes?. BMJ Quality \u0026amp; Safety 2020; 29: 1\u0026ndash;2. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010490.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRogol, Alan D. Clinical and humanistic aspects of growth hormone deficiency and growth-related disorders. The American Journal of Managed Care 2011; 17 (Suppl 18): eS4\u0026ndash;e10.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWhitley, Brian K. In a language spoken and unspoken: nurturing our practice as humanistic clinicians. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 2012; 43: 973\u0026ndash;979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.11.002.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWatson, Jeanne C. Treatment failure in humanistic and experiential psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology 2011; 67: 1117\u0026ndash;1128. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20849.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePettit, Michele L. An analysis of the doctor-patient relationship using Patch Adams. Journal of School Health 2008; 78: 234\u0026ndash;238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2008.00292.x.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAram, Shuaibu Saidu; Saalidong, Benedict Manaab; Opoku, Eric Owusu; Sam, Hingabong. Perceived risk of contracting COVID-19 among healthcare workers in Ghana: A cross-sectional study. Health Science Reports 2022; 5: e653. https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.653.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFujishiro, Kaori. Is perceived racial privilege associated with health? Findings from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Social Science \u0026amp; Medicine 2008; 68: 840\u0026ndash;844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.12.007.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTao, Wenjing; Zeng, Wu; Yan, Lijing; Yang, Hui; Wen, Jin; Li, Wei. The health service capacity of primary health care in West China: different perspectives of physicians and their patients. BMC Health Services Research 2019; 19: 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-3964-x.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGovindraj, Lakshmi; Santhosh, Seetharaman; Sunish, Shyamala C.; Gopalakrishnan, Anoop Velayudhan; Chandy, Sujith J.; Oommen, Viji; Fx, Mary Sherin. Effectiveness of teaching medical ethics to medical students on an online platform: An analysis of students\u0026apos; perceptions and feedback. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics 2022; : 32\u0026ndash;38. https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2022.034.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, Min; Ye, Lipin; Weng, Yihan. Blended teaching of medical ethics during COVID-19: practice and reflection. BMC Medical Education 2022; 22: 361. doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03431-6.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLanphier, Edward. Public trust and medical ethics. Hastings Center Report 2022; 52: 58\u0026ndash;59. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.1355.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWu, Ying; Dai, Jianbo; Chen, Xinyi; Xie, Tian; Han, Lu; Wu, Yali; Chen, Yan; Liu, Yan; Cai, Zilin; Zhang, Weiguang; Bai, Jing. Psychometric evaluation of the body understanding measure pregnancy scale Chinese version for pregnant Chinese women. Midwifery 2022; 112: 103394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2022.103394.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, Tong; Yin, Changshuan; Geng, Yina; Zhou, Ying; Sun, Shusen; Tang, Fengyan. Development and validation of psychological contract scale for hospital pharmacists. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare 2020; 13: 1433\u0026ndash;1442. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S270030.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArthur-Aidoo, Bernard Martins; Aigbavboa, Clinton Ohis; Thwala, Wellington Didibhuku. Exploratory factor analysis on drivers of firm\u0026rsquo;s growth among construction SMEs in Ghana. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development 2018; 10: 20\u0026ndash;27. https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2017.1380932.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, Li; Fang, Jie. Study on potential factors of patient satisfaction: based on exploratory factor analysis. Patient Preference and Adherence 2019; 13: 1983\u0026ndash;1994. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S228073.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIantovics, L\u0026aacute;szl\u0026oacute; Barna; Rotar, Corina; Morar, Florin. Survey on establishing the optimal number of factors in exploratory factor analysis applied to data mining. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 2019; 9: e1294. https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1294.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJones, Martyn C.; Williams, Brian; Rattray, Janice; MacGillivray, Stephen; Baldie, Deborah; Abubakari, Abdul Rauf; Coyle, Joanne; Mackie, Susan; McKenna, Emma. Extending the assessment of patient-centredness in health care: Development of the updated Valuing Patients as Individuals Scale using exploratory factor analysis. Journal of Clinical Nursing 2018; 27: 65\u0026ndash;76. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13845.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, Sung Eun; Dahinten, V. Susan. The enabling, enacting, and elaborating factors of safety culture associated with patient safety: a multilevel analysis. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 2020; 52: 544\u0026ndash;552. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12585.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheng, Shi; Hu, Yijie; Pfaff, Holger; Lu, Changfu; Fu, Qiang; Wang, Li; Li, Dong; Xia, Shichang. The patient safety culture scale for chinese primary health care institutions: development, validity and reliability. Journal of Patient Safety 2021; 17: 114-121. https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000000733.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMonaca, Christian; Bestmann, Beate; Kattein, Mandy; Langner, Daniel; M\u0026uuml;ller, Henrik; Manser, Tanja. Assessing patients\u0026apos; perceptions of safety culture in the hospital setting: development and initial evaluation of the patients\u0026apos; perceptions of safety culture scale. Journal of Patient Safety 2020; 16: 90\u0026ndash;97. https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000000436.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKagan, Ilya; Porat, Nurit; Barnoy, Sivia. The quality and safety culture in general hospitals: patients\u0026apos;, physicians\u0026apos; and nurses\u0026apos; evaluation of its effect on patient satisfaction. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2019; 31: 261\u0026ndash;268. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzy138.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJovanovic, Ana; Miller-Hodges, Eve; Castriota, Felice; Takyar, Surya; Howitt, Hannah; Ayodele, Olubunmi. A systematic literature review on the health-related quality of life and economic burden of Fabry disease. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 2024; 19: 181. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-024-03131-y.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDrahos, Jennifer; Boateng-Kuffour, Alex; Calvert, Melanie; Valentine, Ashley; Mason, Amy; Li, Ning; Pakbaz, Zahra; Shah, Farrukh T.; Ainsworth, Nicholas; Martin, Antony P. Health-related quality of life and economic impacts in adults with sickle cell disease with recurrent vaso-occlusive crises: findings from a prospective longitudinal real-world survey. Quality of Life Research 2025; Apr 17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-025-03963-6. (Online ahead of print).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, Ying; Qiu, Shumin; Li, Haiyan; Chen, Caiyun; Yu, Ruihua; Yuan, Shanshan. Development and validation of the nurses\u0026apos; touch comfort evaluation scale in China. BMC Nursing 2025; 24: 171. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-025-02804-8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHadar-Shoval, Doron; Asraf, Kfir; Mizrachi, Yarden; Haber, Yael; Elyoseph, Zohar. Assessing the alignment of large language models with human values for mental health integration: cross-sectional study using schwartz\u0026apos;s theory of basic values. JMIR Mental Health 2024; 11: e55988. https://doi.org/10.2196/55988.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVecchione, Michele; Schwartz, Shalom H. Personal values and academic achievement. British Journal of Psychology 2022; 113: 630\u0026ndash;652. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12555.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTables 5 and 6 are available in the Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Senior healthcare executives, Cultural values, Scales, Delphi method","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7309689/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7309689/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eMost existing cultural values scales focus on nonmedical fields and are unsuitable for measuring the cultural values of leaders in the medical field. The cultural values of senior healthcare executives are important in patient safety culture; thus there is an urgent need to construct a scale system to evaluate these cultural values. We aimed to develop a reliable scale for assessing the cultural values of senior healthcare executives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe initial framework of index entries was constructed using literature analysis and a group interview method. Then, the whole system of indicators for cultural values of senior healthcare executives was constructed using the three-round Delphi method. Overall, 94 senior healthcare executives of 13 hospitals were surveyed for reliability and validity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe final scale contained 4 primary, 13 secondary, and 39 tertiary indicators. After three rounds of expert consultation, questionnaire collation, and analysis, the recall rates of the indicators were 95%, 100%, and 100%, respectively; the authority coefficients were 0.74, 0.75, and 0.77, respectively; and the coefficient of expert opinion coordination fluctuated above and below 0.4. After using the questionnaire method for validation, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.972, and the cumulative variance contribution of the common factor was 82.56%.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe cultural values scale for senior healthcare executives had high scientific validity, authority, and good reliability, which can provide a scientific basis for improving patient safety culture and alleviating doctor-patient disputes.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Development and Validation of the Organizational Cultural Values Scale for Senior Healthcare Executives in Chinese Hospitals","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-03 06:15:00","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7309689/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"7c4524ab-0edc-4bd4-9331-9b490af71f78","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 3rd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-09-19T03:23:39+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-03 06:15:00","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7309689","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7309689","identity":"rs-7309689","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}