两种用于评估家庭护理结果的健康状况测量方法的可靠性和有效性。

The reliability and validity of two health status measures for evaluating outcomes of home care nursing.

作者信息

Irvine D, O'Brien-Pallas L L, Murray M, Cockerill R, Sidani S, Laurie-Shaw B, Lochhaas-Gerlach J

机构信息

Nursing Effectiveness, Utilization, and Outcomes Research Unit, Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3H4, Canada.

出版信息

Res Nurs Health. 2000 Feb;23(1):43-54. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1098-240x(200002)23:1<43::aid-nur6>3.0.co;2-k.

DOI:10.1002/(sici)1098-240x(200002)23:1<43::aid-nur6>3.0.co;2-k

PMID:10686572

Abstract

The reliability, validity, and sensitivity of the Medical Outcome Study Short Form (SF-36) and the Quality of Life Profile: Senior Version (QOLPSV) for measuring outcomes of home care nursing were evaluated. Data were collected from 50 clients receiving home care nursing services. Twenty-two registered nurses and six registered practical nurses collected client and nursing data on each home visit. Client baseline and outcome measures were collected by two independent evaluators at admission and discharge from the home care service. Internal consistency reliability ranged from.76 to.94 for the eight subscales of the SF-36. Internal consistency reliability ranged from.47 to.82 for the nine subscales of the QOLPSV. The subscales of both instruments had minimal problems with missing responses. The SF-36 was found to be more sensitive than the QOLPSV to change over time. In addition, the subscales of the SF-36 were found to be more sensitive than the subscales of the QOLPSV to several of the nursing variables, such as intensity of the client's nursing condition and skill mix.

摘要

对医学结果研究简表（SF - 36）和生活质量概况：老年版（QOLPSV）在衡量家庭护理结果方面的可靠性、有效性和敏感性进行了评估。数据收集自50名接受家庭护理服务的客户。22名注册护士和6名注册执业护士在每次家访时收集客户和护理数据。客户的基线和结果测量由两名独立评估人员在家庭护理服务的入院和出院时收集。SF - 36的八个分量表的内部一致性信度在0.76至0.94之间。QOLPSV的九个分量表的内部一致性信度在0.47至0.82之间。两种工具的分量表在缺失回答方面问题最小。发现SF - 36比QOLPSV对随时间变化更敏感。此外，还发现SF - 36的分量表比QOLPSV的分量表对几个护理变量更敏感，如客户护理状况的强度和技能组合。