Suppr超能文献

两种复杂悲伤评估方法的比较:Brief Grief Questionnaire(BGQ)和Inventory of Complicated Grief(ICG)。

Comparison of two measures for Complicated Grief: Brief Grief Questionnaire (BGQ) and Inventory of Complicated Grief (ICG).

机构信息

Department of Palliative Nursing, Health Sciences, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Miyagi, Japan.

National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, National Center for Cognitive Behavior Therapy and Research, Tokyo, Japan.

出版信息

Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2021 Feb 8;51(2):252-257. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyaa185.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

No prior studies have used a single sample of bereaved families of cancer patients to compare multiple scales for assessing Complicated Grief. Here, we compare the two measures.

METHODS

We sent a questionnaire to the bereaved families of cancer patients who had died at 71 palliative care units nationwide.

RESULTS

The analysis included 3173 returned questionnaires. Prevalence of Complicated Grief was 7.8% by Brief Grief Questionnaire (with a cutoff score of 8) and 15.5% for Inventory of Complicated Grief (with a cutoff score of 26). The Spearman's correlation coefficient between the Brief Grief Questionnaire and the Inventory of Complicated Grief was 0.79, and a ceiling effect was seen for the distribution of the Brief Grief Questionnaire scores. Although 6.4% of respondents scored both 8 or higher on the Brief Grief Questionnaire and 26 or higher on the Inventory of Complicated Grief, only 1.4% scored both 8 or higher on the Brief Grief Questionnaire and <26 on the Inventory of Complicated Grief. In contrast, 9.1% scored <8 on the Brief Grief Questionnaire but 26 or higher on the Inventory of Complicated Grief.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of Complicated Grief was estimated to be higher by the Inventory of Complicated Grief than by the Brief Grief Questionnaire in this sample. Patients with severe Complicated Grief might be difficult to discriminate their intensity of grief by the Brief Grief Questionnaire. Once the diagnostic criteria of Complicated Grief are established, further research, such as optimization of cutoff points and calculations of sensitivity and specificity, will be necessary.

摘要

目的

先前的研究均使用癌症患者丧亲家庭的单一样本,比较多种评估复杂悲伤的量表。本研究旨在对这两种测量方法进行比较。

方法

我们向全国 71 个姑息治疗病房的癌症患者丧亲家庭寄出了一份调查问卷。

结果

对 3173 份回收问卷进行分析。根据简短悲伤问卷(截断值 8),悲伤反应复杂的发生率为 7.8%,根据复杂悲伤量表(截断值 26)为 15.5%。简短悲伤问卷与复杂悲伤量表之间的斯皮尔曼相关系数为 0.79,简短悲伤问卷评分分布存在天花板效应。尽管有 6.4%的受访者简短悲伤问卷得分均为 8 或更高,复杂悲伤量表得分均为 26 或更高,但只有 1.4%的受访者简短悲伤问卷得分均为 8 或更高,而复杂悲伤量表得分<26。相比之下,9.1%的受访者简短悲伤问卷得分<8,但复杂悲伤量表得分均为 26 或更高。

结论

在该样本中,复杂悲伤量表评估的悲伤反应复杂发生率高于简短悲伤问卷。严重悲伤反应复杂的患者可能难以通过简短悲伤问卷来区分其悲伤强度。一旦确立了复杂悲伤的诊断标准,还需要进一步的研究,如优化截断值,并计算灵敏度和特异性。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验