Development and validation of the hospice professional coping scale among Chinese nurses.

BACKGROUND

Hospice care professionals often experience trauma patient deaths and multiple patient deaths in a short period of time (more so than other nurses). This repeated exposure to the death process and the death of patients leads to greater psychological pressure on hospice care professionals. But at present, people pay more attention to the feelings and care burden of the family members of dying patients but pay less attention to medical staff. Thus, this study aimed to develop a scale on the burden of care for hospice care providers and assess the coping capacity of hospice professionals. Raising awareness of the psychological burden of hospice professionals.

METHODS

Through a literature review, research group discussion, Delphi method and a pre-survey of professional coping skills among nurses, 200 hospice professionals who had received training in hospice care from pilot institutions engaged in or providing hospice care were selected for investigation. Cronbach's α coefficient and split-half reliability were used to test the internal consistency of the scale, and content validity and explore factor analysis (EFA) were used to test the construct validity of the scale.

RESULTS

Two rounds of Delphi methods were carried out, and the effective recovery rate was 100%. The expert authority coefficients of the two rounds were 0.838 and 0.833, respectively. The Kendall's W coefficient of experts in the first round was 0.121 ~ 0.200 (P < 0.05), and the Kendall's W coefficient of the second round was 0.115-0.136 (P < 0.05), indicating a good level of expert coordination. The final survey scale for the care burden of hospice professionals included four dimensions-working environment (9 items), professional roles (8 items), clinical nursing (9 items) and psychological burden (7 items)-with a total of 33 items. The total Cronbach's α coefficient of the scale was 0.963, and the Cronbach's α coefficients of the working environment, professional roles, clinical nursing and psychological burden dimensions were 0.920, 0.889, 0.936 and 0.910, respectively. The total split-half reliability of the scale was 0.927, and the split-half reliability of each dimension was 0.846, 0.817, 0.891, and 0.832. The content validity of the scale items ranged from 0.90 to 1.00. Exploratory factor analysis revealed 5 common factors, with a total cumulative contribution rate of 68.878%. The common degree of each item in the scale was > 0.4, and the factor loading of each item was also > 0.4.

CONCLUSION

The scale is an open-access, short, easy-to-administer scale. And which for assessing hospice care burden among hospice professionals developed in this study demonstrated strong reliability and validity. This tool can serve as a dependable instrument for evaluating the burden of hospice care for terminally ill patients by professionals in the hospice setting.