Suppr超能文献

如何在巴林特小组中衡量学习效果?在中国验证巴林特小组问卷。

How can learning effects be measured in Balint groups? Validation of a Balint group questionnaire in China.

机构信息

Center for Mental Health, Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, Hauptstr. 8, D 79104, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.

Department of Psychological Medicine, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.

出版信息

BMC Med Educ. 2021 Dec 9;21(1):608. doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-03030-x.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Balint groups aim to reflect doctor-patient relationships on the basis of personal cases. This study reports the validation of a questionnaire aimed at the identification of learning processes among Balint group participants in China.

METHODS

This multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted during Balint group sessions in Beijing, Guangzhou and Shanghai. A heterogeneous sample of different professional groups was intended to adequately capture the reality of Balint work in China. After a Balint group session, the participants were asked to complete the Mandarin version of the Balint group session questionnaire (BGQ-C) and the group questionnaire (GQ), an internationally validated instrument to assess central dimensions of therapeutic relationships during group processes.

RESULTS

Questionnaires from n = 806 participants from 55 Chinese Balint groups, predominantly comprising individuals with a medical background, were analyzed. Most participants were female (74.6%), and the average age was 34.2 years old (SD = 9.4). The results indicated good to very good reliability (Cronbach's α = .70 to .86; retest r = .430 to .697). The verification of the construct validity of the BGQ-C showed satisfying convergent (r = .465 to .574) and discriminant validity (r = -.117 to -.209). The model was tested with a confirmatory factor analysis of a three-factor model (standardized root mean square residual = .025; comparative fit index = .977; Tucker-Lewis index = .971). The 3 empirically identified scales resulted in good model fit with the theoretical dimensions of Balint work postulated in the literature: "reflection of transference dynamics in the doctor-patient relationship", "emotional and cognitive learning" and "case mirroring in the dynamic of the group". Due to the high correlations between the factors, a single-factor model was possible. A group comparison between the German and Chinese samples showed different loadings across cultures.

CONCLUSIONS

The BGQ-C is a quick-to-complete, item-based measuring instrument that allows the relevant dimensions of Balint group work to be recorded. This study suggests good psychometric properties of the Chinese version. Nevertheless, it must be assumed that the composition of constructs in the two countries is different.

摘要

背景

巴林特小组旨在基于个人案例反映医患关系。本研究报告了一种旨在识别中国巴林特小组成员学习过程的问卷的验证。

方法

这项多中心横断面研究在北京、广州和上海的巴林特小组会议期间进行。旨在通过不同专业群体的异质样本充分捕捉中国巴林特工作的现实。在巴林特小组会议结束后,参与者被要求填写中文版本的巴林特小组会议问卷(BGQ-C)和小组问卷(GQ),这是一种评估小组过程中治疗关系核心维度的国际验证工具。

结果

分析了来自 55 个中国巴林特小组的 806 名参与者的问卷,这些小组主要由具有医学背景的人组成。大多数参与者为女性(74.6%),平均年龄为 34.2 岁(SD=9.4)。结果表明,信度良好至非常好(Cronbach's α=.70 至.86;重测 r=.430 至.697)。BGQ-C 的结构效度验证显示出令人满意的收敛性(r=.465 至.574)和判别效度(r=-.117 至-.209)。通过对文献中假设的巴林特工作的三个理论维度的验证性因子分析来检验该模型:“医患关系中转译动态的反思”、“情感和认知学习”以及“小组动态中的案例镜像”。由于各因素之间存在高度相关性,因此可以采用单因素模型。对德国和中国样本的组间比较显示出跨文化的不同负荷。

结论

BGQ-C 是一种快速完成、基于项目的测量工具,可记录巴林特小组工作的相关维度。本研究表明中文版本具有良好的心理测量学特性。然而,必须假设两国的结构构成不同。

相似文献

2
[How effective are Balint group leaders?].
Z Psychosom Med Psychother. 2019 Feb;65(1):4-13. doi: 10.13109/zptm.2019.65.1.4.
3
Chinese version of Impact of Weight on Quality of Life for Kids: psychometric properties in a large school-based sample.
J Public Health (Oxf). 2016 Jun;38(2):e187-93. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdv094. Epub 2015 Jul 22.
5
[Designing the doctor-patient relationship].
Z Psychosom Med Psychother. 2017 Sep;63(3):267-279. doi: 10.13109/zptm.2017.63.3.267.
7
8
Chinese version of the clinical supervision self-assessment tool: Assessment of reliability and validity.
Nurse Educ Today. 2021 Mar;98:104734. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104734. Epub 2020 Dec 28.

引用本文的文献

1
Balint groups: an effective tool for improving health professionals' perceived well-being.
Isr J Health Policy Res. 2024 Aug 1;13(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s13584-024-00618-8.

本文引用的文献

2
[Intervention of Balint group on the emotional labor and job burnout of nurses in cardiology].
Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi. 2020 Mar 20;38(3):203-206. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn121094-20190403-00132.
3
A Randomized Controlled Trial of Balint Groups to Prevent Burnout Among Residents in China.
Front Psychiatry. 2020 Feb 11;10:957. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00957. eCollection 2019.
5
Research on Balint groups: A literature review.
Patient Educ Couns. 2015 Jun;98(6):685-94. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.01.014. Epub 2015 Jan 27.
6
Improving the doctor-patient relationship in China: the role of balint groups.
Int J Psychiatry Med. 2013;46(4):417-27. doi: 10.2190/PM.46.4.g.
9
Ending violence against doctors in China.
Lancet. 2012 May 12;379(9828):1764. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60729-6.
10
New generations of Chinese doctors face crisis.
Lancet. 2012 May 19;379(9829):1878. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60774-0. Epub 2012 May 11.

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