Content validity of the newly developed risk assessment tool for religious mass gathering events in an Indian setting (Mass Gathering Risk Assessment Tool-MGRAT)

Abstract

Background: Risk assessment (RA) for mass gathering events is crucial to identify potential health hazards. It aids in planning and response activities specific to the event but is often overlooked by the event organizers. This paper reports the content validity process of a newly developed tool called Mass Gathering Risk Assessment Tool (MGRAT), which intends to assess the risks associated with religious mass gathering events in Indian settings. Methods: Qualitative approach was followed to identify the risks associated with mass gathering events and to identify the domains and items to be included in the RA tool. The draft tool was shared with six experts who were selected by the convenient method; selected experts were requested to assess the tool and give their comments about the domains, items, relevant responses, and overall presentation of the tool using content validity questionnaire. Content validity index and Fleiss kappa statistics were calculated to assess the agreement between multiple raters. Results: Agreement proportion expressed as scale-level content validity index (S-CVI) calculated by the averaging method is 0.92. S-CVI; calculated by universal agreement is 0.78. Fleiss kappa statistics to measure the agreement between multiple experts after adjusting the component of the chance agreement is 0.522 (95% CI: 0.417, 0.628, P value: 0.001). Conclusion: MGRAT is a valid tool, which has an appropriate level of content validity. As the number of raters increases, there will be difficulty in achieving consensus among all the items, which is the reason for lower Content Validity Index/Universal Average (CVI/UA) when compared with Content Validity Index/Average (CVI/Ave). Fleiss kappa statistics also indicated moderate agreement among the raters beyond the chance agreement, which also supports the appropriate content validity of MGRAT.

Developing Risk Management Policies for Healthcare Providers at Critical Care Units

“…This result was in agreement with Zayed, (2017), who mentioned there was agreement among academic and non-academic experts with minimal modifications. Also, this result was in agreement with Sharma et al (2019), who mentioned that more than half of the expertise agreed with some modifications. Furthermore, this result was in agreement with Leithy, and Ashour (2021)in a study entitled clinical risk management in healthcare organization as perceived by staff nurses.…”

Guidance for Health Risk Assessment at Recurrent Mass Gatherings: The Jeddah Tool Framework

“…16,17 A few others lack appropriate benchmarks for monitoring capacity changes over successive seasons. 13,18 Due to the damaging effect of certain health threats on the reputation of MGs, the Jeddah tool introduced for the first time a reputational risk assessment domain. During the 2020 G20 risk assessment in Saudi Arabia, a very high reputational risk of COVID-19 was an important consideration for recommendations to rather conduct a virtual G20 Leader's Summit, despite the limited crowd size and significant preparedness of the health system.…”

Mass Gathering Medicine in Soccer Leagues: A Review and Creation of the SALEM Tool

“…The recovery phase in a MG disaster event cycle is quite different to the normal disaster cycle as the event will most likely have been terminated in most cases and the focus here will be on ensuring that ALL casualties have been accounted for at the venue and that “hot wash” takes place prior to closing up medical activities at the venue. Normal status at MG venues is normally no medical activity in the majority of cases [ 77 , 81 , 84 ].…”

“…Risk assessment for a MG includes the evaluation of the potential public health impacts, such as the risk of infectious disease outbreak and injury, thereby determining the systems and processes required to successfully and safely deliver the MG event [ 1 ]. Several evidence-based tools were developed over recent years and exhibited fair validity and reliability in properly planning MG events [ 84 ].…”