Bioethical Reflections on the UN 2030 Agenda and its …
741
2 Methodology
The study had a cross-sectional design with a quantitative and qualitative approach
and was exploratory and descriptive in nature (Prodanov 2013). The population was
composed of professors from higher education institutions (HEIs) in the Brazilian
state of Rio Grande do Sul (RS). They were selected via random, non-probabilistic
sampling out of convenience (openepi = 95% CI (%), n = 1400 individuals). Data
was collected between March and July 2017. The study was approved by the Research
Ethics Committee of the Clinical Hospital of Porto Alegre (HCPA), by the Ethics
Committee of Fernando Pessoa University (UFP) in Porto, Portugal, and via CAAE
Registry No. 550666168.0000.5327.
For data collection, an online survey was built and hosted on the Survio© platform
and then sent to the participants via e-mail. Leaders of each HEI had been contacted
previously to present the study objective and obtain approval for the survey. All of
the respondents were informed about the need for their approval via the Informed
Consent Form (ICF) that accompanied the protocol.
The statistical analysis of the results was performed with the aid of the R statistical software environment (R Development Core Team), version 3.3.1. (2015), as
well as through the cross-checking of survey data and the conceptual frameworks
of the Health Promoting Universities (HPU)/World Health Organization (WHO).
Qualitative and dissertation data were treated using content analysis as per Bardin
(2009). The data were collected through the application of 1400 questionnaires, each
of which contained 35 questions. Each question had five possible answers on a Likert scale to which the following values were attributed: 1 point—I don’t know about
this; 2 points—I know a little bit about this; 3 points—I know a moderate amount
about this; 4 points—I know a lot about this; and 5 points—I am fully aware of
this or know everything about it. The instrument was an adaptation of the WHO
protocol/HPU Toolkit of the University of Central Lancashire in Lancaster, UK, the
use of which was expressly authorized by its creator, Professor Mark T. Dooris. The
toolkit includes a research tool that enables HEIs to analyze and reflect on their perceptions of health, sustainable development, and well- being in their core businesses
and organizational culture.
A significance level of 1% was adopted, and hypotheses whose descriptive value
(p-value) was lower than 0.001 was rejected; varimax rotation with factorial load
retention >0.40 was used; the factor analysis and principal components analysis
(PCA) with an eigenvalue higher than 1.0 was applied to identify groups or groupings of variables, and thus to understand the structure of a set of variables and to
show the relations between them, reducing the data set to a more manageable size
while retaining as much of the original information as possible. Cronbach’s alpha
(acceptable index > 0.60) ensured the internal consistency of the instrument used.
741
2 Methodology
The study had a cross-sectional design with a quantitative and qualitative approach
and was exploratory and descriptive in nature (Prodanov 2013). The population was
composed of professors from higher education institutions (HEIs) in the Brazilian
state of Rio Grande do Sul (RS). They were selected via random, non-probabilistic
sampling out of convenience (openepi = 95% CI (%), n = 1400 individuals). Data
was collected between March and July 2017. The study was approved by the Research
Ethics Committee of the Clinical Hospital of Porto Alegre (HCPA), by the Ethics
Committee of Fernando Pessoa University (UFP) in Porto, Portugal, and via CAAE
Registry No. 550666168.0000.5327.
For data collection, an online survey was built and hosted on the Survio© platform
and then sent to the participants via e-mail. Leaders of each HEI had been contacted
previously to present the study objective and obtain approval for the survey. All of
the respondents were informed about the need for their approval via the Informed
Consent Form (ICF) that accompanied the protocol.
The statistical analysis of the results was performed with the aid of the R statistical software environment (R Development Core Team), version 3.3.1. (2015), as
well as through the cross-checking of survey data and the conceptual frameworks
of the Health Promoting Universities (HPU)/World Health Organization (WHO).
Qualitative and dissertation data were treated using content analysis as per Bardin
(2009). The data were collected through the application of 1400 questionnaires, each
of which contained 35 questions. Each question had five possible answers on a Likert scale to which the following values were attributed: 1 point—I don’t know about
this; 2 points—I know a little bit about this; 3 points—I know a moderate amount
about this; 4 points—I know a lot about this; and 5 points—I am fully aware of
this or know everything about it. The instrument was an adaptation of the WHO
protocol/HPU Toolkit of the University of Central Lancashire in Lancaster, UK, the
use of which was expressly authorized by its creator, Professor Mark T. Dooris. The
toolkit includes a research tool that enables HEIs to analyze and reflect on their perceptions of health, sustainable development, and well- being in their core businesses
and organizational culture.
A significance level of 1% was adopted, and hypotheses whose descriptive value
(p-value) was lower than 0.001 was rejected; varimax rotation with factorial load
retention >0.40 was used; the factor analysis and principal components analysis
(PCA) with an eigenvalue higher than 1.0 was applied to identify groups or groupings of variables, and thus to understand the structure of a set of variables and to
show the relations between them, reducing the data set to a more manageable size
while retaining as much of the original information as possible. Cronbach’s alpha
(acceptable index > 0.60) ensured the internal consistency of the instrument used.