• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Development the Care Evaluation Scale Version 2.0: a modified version of a measure for bereaved family members to evaluate the structure and process of palliative care for cancer patient.开发护理评估量表2.0版:一种用于丧亲家庭成员评估癌症患者姑息治疗结构和过程的测量方法的修订版。
BMC Palliat Care. 2017 Jan 23;16(1):8. doi: 10.1186/s12904-017-0183-2.
2
A scale to measure satisfaction of bereaved family receiving inpatient palliative care.一种用于衡量接受住院姑息治疗的丧亲家庭满意度的量表。
Palliat Med. 2002 Mar;16(2):141-50. doi: 10.1191/0269216302pm514oa.
3
Validity and Reliability of the Dying Care Process and Outcome Scales Before and After Death From the Bereaved Family Members' Perspective.从 bereaved 家庭成员的角度看临终关怀过程及死亡前后结果量表的有效性和可靠性
Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2019 Feb;36(2):130-137. doi: 10.1177/1049909118785178. Epub 2018 Jun 26.
4
The development and validation of a shorter version of the Canadian Health Care Evaluation Project Questionnaire (CANHELP Lite): a novel tool to measure patient and family satisfaction with end-of-life care.开发并验证了加拿大卫生保健评估项目问卷(CANHELP Lite)的简化版:一种用于衡量患者和家属对临终关怀满意度的新工具。
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2013 Aug;46(2):289-97. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2012.07.012. Epub 2012 Oct 26.
5
The Japan HOspice and Palliative Care Evaluation Study 3: Study Design, Characteristics of Participants and Participating Institutions, and Response Rates.日本临终关怀与姑息治疗评估研究3:研究设计、参与者及参与机构的特征和回复率。
Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2017 Aug;34(7):654-664. doi: 10.1177/1049909116646336. Epub 2016 May 2.
6
Measuring the quality of structure and process in end-of-life care from the bereaved family perspective.从丧亲家庭的角度衡量临终关怀的结构与过程质量。
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2004 Jun;27(6):492-501. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2003.10.014.
7
Measuring the structure and process of end-of-life care in Korea: validation of the Korean version of the Care Evaluation Scale (CES).测量韩国临终关怀的结构和过程:韩国版关怀评估量表(CES)的验证。
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2012 Oct;44(4):615-625.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.09.021. Epub 2012 Jun 23.
8
Effects of End-of-Life Discussions on the Mental Health of Bereaved Family Members and Quality of Patient Death and Care.临终讨论对丧亲家庭成员心理健康及患者死亡与护理质量的影响。
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017 Jul;54(1):17-26.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.03.008. Epub 2017 Apr 24.
9
Measuring the regret of bereaved family members regarding the decision to admit cancer patients to palliative care units.衡量癌症患者入住姑息治疗病房这一决定给丧亲家属带来的遗憾。
Psychooncology. 2008 Sep;17(9):926-31. doi: 10.1002/pon.1312.
10
Good death inventory: a measure for evaluating good death from the bereaved family member's perspective.善终量表:一种从丧亲家属视角评估善终情况的测量工具。
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2008 May;35(5):486-98. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.07.009. Epub 2008 Mar 20.

引用本文的文献

1
Surveying the quality of bereavement support within a service setting: A pilot study using cognitive interviewing with bereaved people.调查服务机构内丧亲之痛支持服务的质量:一项对丧亲者进行认知访谈的试点研究。
Palliat Med. 2025 Sep;39(8):884-896. doi: 10.1177/02692163251353012. Epub 2025 Jul 28.
2
Psychological Distress in Patients With Asbestos-Related Diseases and Their Families: A Systematic Literature Review.石棉相关疾病患者及其家属的心理困扰:一项系统文献综述
Psychooncology. 2025 Jan;34(1):e70051. doi: 10.1002/pon.70051.
3
Protocol of a nation-wide post-bereavement survey on quality of hospice and palliative care: J-HOPE 5 study.一项关于临终关怀和姑息治疗质量的全国性丧亲后调查方案:J-HOPE 5研究
BMC Palliat Care. 2024 Dec 3;23(1):277. doi: 10.1186/s12904-024-01600-6.
4
Bereaved family members' perspectives on quality of death in deceased acute cardiovascular disease patients compared with cancer patients - a comparison of the J-HOPE3 study and the quality of palliative care in heart disease (Q-PACH) study.比较急性心血管病和癌症患者死亡质量:从 J-HOPE3 研究和心脏病姑息治疗质量(Q-PACH)研究中观察死者家属的观点。
BMC Palliat Care. 2024 Jul 26;23(1):188. doi: 10.1186/s12904-024-01521-4.
5
Good Death and Quality of End-of-Life Care in Patients with Coexisting Cancer and Dementia: Perspective of Bereaved Families.癌症与痴呆症并存患者的善终与临终关怀质量:丧亲家庭的视角
Palliat Med Rep. 2024 Jul 13;5(1):215-224. doi: 10.1089/pmr.2023.0083. eCollection 2024.
6
Dying, death and bereavement: developing a national survey of bereaved relatives.死亡、濒死和丧亲:开展一项针对丧亲亲属的全国性调查。
BMC Palliat Care. 2023 Feb 23;22(1):14. doi: 10.1186/s12904-023-01135-2.
7
Depression and Complicated Grief, and Associated Factors, of Bereaved Family Members of Patients Who Died of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma in Japan.日本恶性胸膜间皮瘤死亡患者 bereaved 家庭成员的抑郁、复杂性哀伤及相关因素
J Clin Med. 2022 Jun 13;11(12):3380. doi: 10.3390/jcm11123380.
8
Bereaved Family Members' Perspectives of Good Death and Quality of End-of-Life Care for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study.恶性胸膜间皮瘤患者临终关怀中丧亲家庭成员对善终及临终护理质量的看法:一项横断面研究。
J Clin Med. 2022 May 1;11(9):2541. doi: 10.3390/jcm11092541.
9
Bathing in Terminal Care of Cancer Patients and Its Relation to Perceptions of a "Good Death": A Nationwide Bereavement Survey in Japan.癌症患者临终关怀中的沐浴及其与“善终”观念的关系:日本全国性丧亲调查
Palliat Med Rep. 2022 Apr 12;3(1):55-64. doi: 10.1089/pmr.2021.0075. eCollection 2022.
10
Family experience of palliative sedation therapy: proportional vs. continuous deep sedation.家庭对姑息性镇静治疗的体验:比例性镇静与连续性深度镇静。
Support Care Cancer. 2022 May;30(5):3903-3915. doi: 10.1007/s00520-021-06745-1. Epub 2022 Jan 18.

本文引用的文献

1
A Nationwide Survey of Quality of End-of-Life Cancer Care in Designated Cancer Centers, Inpatient Palliative Care Units, and Home Hospices in Japan: The J-HOPE Study.日本指定癌症中心、住院姑息治疗病房及居家临终关怀机构中终末期癌症护理质量的全国性调查:J-HOPE研究
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2015 Jul;50(1):38-47.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2015.01.007. Epub 2015 Feb 2.
2
Association between quality of end-of-life care and possible complicated grief among bereaved family members.临终关怀质量与 bereaved 家庭成员中可能出现的复杂悲伤之间的关联。 (注:“bereaved”常见释义为“丧失亲人的” ,此处结合语境翻译为“bereaved family members”为“丧亲家庭成员” ,但为了贴合原文表述未做调整 )
J Palliat Med. 2014 Sep;17(9):1025-31. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2013.0552. Epub 2014 Jul 22.
3
Care evaluation scale-patient version: measuring the quality of the structure and process of palliative care from the patient's perspective.关怀评估量表-患者版:从患者角度衡量姑息治疗的结构和过程质量。
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2014 Jul;48(1):110-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.08.019. Epub 2014 Mar 27.
4
Effects of a programme of interventions on regional comprehensive palliative care for patients with cancer: a mixed-methods study.干预方案对癌症患者区域综合姑息治疗效果的影响:一项混合方法研究。
Lancet Oncol. 2013 Jun;14(7):638-46. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70127-X. Epub 2013 May 9.
5
Brief measure for screening complicated grief: reliability and discriminant validity.简易复杂悲痛筛查量表:信度和判别效度。
PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e31209. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031209. Epub 2012 Feb 14.
6
Evaluation of end-of-life cancer care from the perspective of bereaved family members: the Japanese experience.从 bereaved 家庭成员的角度评估临终癌症护理:日本的经验。 (注:“bereaved”常见释义为“丧失亲人的” ,这里结合语境翻译为“失去亲人的”可能更合适,但按要求保留原文未翻译完整的词汇)
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Aug 10;26(23):3845-52. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.8287.
7
Good death inventory: a measure for evaluating good death from the bereaved family member's perspective.善终量表:一种从丧亲家属视角评估善终情况的测量工具。
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2008 May;35(5):486-98. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.07.009. Epub 2008 Mar 20.
8
The patient health questionnaire, Japanese version: validity according to the mini-international neuropsychiatric interview-plus.患者健康问卷,日文版:基于简易国际神经精神访谈升级版的效度
Psychol Rep. 2007 Dec;101(3 Pt 1):952-60. doi: 10.2466/pr0.101.3.952-960.
9
Screening for complicated grief among Project Liberty service recipients 18 months after September 11, 2001.对“自由计划”服务对象在2001年9月11日事件发生18个月后的复杂性哀伤情况进行筛查。
Psychiatr Serv. 2006 Sep;57(9):1291-7. doi: 10.1176/ps.2006.57.9.1291.
10
Measuring end-of-life care outcomes retrospectively.回顾性评估临终关怀结果。
J Palliat Med. 2005;8 Suppl 1:S42-9. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2005.8.s-42.

开发护理评估量表2.0版:一种用于丧亲家庭成员评估癌症患者姑息治疗结构和过程的测量方法的修订版。

Development the Care Evaluation Scale Version 2.0: a modified version of a measure for bereaved family members to evaluate the structure and process of palliative care for cancer patient.

作者信息

Miyashita Mitsunori, Aoyama Maho, Nakahata Misato, Yamada Yuji, Abe Mutsumi, Yanagihara Kazuhiro, Shirado Akemi, Shutoh Mariko, Okamoto Yoshiaki, Hamano Jun, Miyamoto Aoi, Yoshida Saki, Sato Kazuki, Hirai Kei, Morita Tatsuya

机构信息

Department of Palliative Nursing, Health Sciences, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-1 Seiryo-machi, Aoba-ku, 980-8575, Sendai, Japan.

Aiwa Hospital, Nagano, Japan.

出版信息

BMC Palliat Care. 2017 Jan 23;16(1):8. doi: 10.1186/s12904-017-0183-2.

DOI:10.1186/s12904-017-0183-2
PMID:28114917
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5259912/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The Care Evaluation Scale (CES1.0) was designed to allow bereaved family members to evaluate the structure and process of care, but has been associated with a high frequency of misresponses. The objective of this study was to develop a modified version of CES1.0 (CES2.0) that would eliminate misresponses while maintaining good reliability and validity.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire survey by mail in October 2013. The participants were bereaved family members of patients who died from cancer in seven institutions in Japan. All family members were asked to complete CES2.0, the short form CES1.0, items on overall care satisfaction, the Family Satisfaction with Advanced Cancer Care (FAMCARE) Scale, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and the Brief Grief Questionnaire (BGQ). To examine test-retest reliability, all participants were asked to complete a second CES2.0.

RESULTS

Of 596 questionnaires sent, 461 (77%) were returned and 393 (66%) were analyzed. In the short form CES1.0, 17.1% of the responses were identified as misresponses. No misresponses were found in CES2.0. We identified 10 CES2.0 subscales similar to those in CES1.0 using exploratory factor analysis. Cronbach's alpha was 0.96, and the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.83. Correlations were found between CES2.0 and overall satisfaction (r = 0.83) and FAMCARE (r = 0.58). In addition, total CES2.0 scores were negatively correlated with the PHQ-9 (r = -0.22) and BGQ (r = -0.10).

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that CES2.0 eliminated misresponses associated with CES1.0 while maintaining good reliability and validity and greatly improving test-retest reliability.

摘要

背景

护理评估量表(CES1.0)旨在让失去亲人的家庭成员评估护理的结构和过程,但一直存在较高的错误回答频率。本研究的目的是开发CES1.0的修订版(CES2.0),以消除错误回答,同时保持良好的信度和效度。

方法

2013年10月,我们通过邮件进行了一项横断面问卷调查。参与者是日本七家机构中因癌症死亡患者的失去亲人的家庭成员。所有家庭成员都被要求完成CES2.0、CES1.0简表、总体护理满意度项目、晚期癌症护理家庭满意度(FAMCARE)量表、患者健康问卷-9(PHQ-9)和简短悲伤问卷(BGQ)。为了检验重测信度,所有参与者都被要求完成第二次CES2.0。

结果

在寄出的596份问卷中,461份(77%)被退回,393份(66%)被分析。在CES1.0简表中,17.1%的回答被确定为错误回答。在CES2.0中未发现错误回答。我们使用探索性因素分析确定了10个与CES1.0中类似的CES2.0子量表。Cronbach's α系数为0.96,组内相关系数为0.83。发现CES2.0与总体满意度(r = 0.83)和FAMCARE(r = 0.58)之间存在相关性。此外,CES2.0总分与PHQ-9(r = -0.22)和BGQ(r = -0.10)呈负相关。

结论

这些结果表明,CES2.0消除了与CES1.0相关的错误回答,同时保持了良好的信度和效度,并大大提高了重测信度。