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
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.
BMC Palliat Care. 2017 Jan 23;16(1):8. doi: 10.1186/s12904-017-0183-2.
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.
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.
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).
These results suggest that CES2.0 eliminated misresponses associated with CES1.0 while maintaining good reliability and validity and greatly improving test-retest reliability.
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。
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。
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。
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。