Background Rehabilitation is essential for improving outcomes in pediatric injury care, yet its effectiveness depends on healthcare providers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP). However, no standardized tool exists to assess these factors in pediatric injury rehabilitation. This study aimed to develop and validate a tool assessing healthcare providers’ KAP in pediatric injury rehabilitation in Northern Tanzania. Methods A methodological study with cross-sectional validation was conducted among multidisciplinary healthcare providers involved in pediatric injury rehabilitation. The KAP tool was initially developed through a literature review and methodological guidance, followed by formal content evaluation by five experts and pilot testing with 10 healthcare providers. Participant characteristics and item responses were summarized using descriptive statistics. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted using a sample of 102 healthcare providers, followed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in a separate sample of 210 healthcare providers. Content validity, construct validity, and internal consistency were assessed using the Content Validity Index, factor analysis, and reliability coefficients, respectively. Results The final tool included 42 items across knowledge (23), attitude (9), and practice (10) domains, reduced from an initial 72 items, content validity was strong (CVI = 0.88). EFA supported a three-factor structure for the knowledge domain and single-factor structures for the attitude and practice domains. CFA further supported the proposed structure, demonstrating acceptable model fit across all domains. Internal consistency ranged from acceptable to good, with Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranging from 0.78 to 0.88 and McDonald's omega ranging from 0.79 to 0.89. Conclusions The validated KAP tool demonstrates acceptable psychometric properties and can be used to assess healthcare providers’ competencies in pediatric injury rehabilitation. It provides a standardized instrument for research and program evaluation in similar resource-limited settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moshi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: