Validity and Reliability of a Chinese-Tailored Scale for the Evaluation of End-of-Life Care in Dementia Patients.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
British journal of hospital medicine Pub Date : 2025-07-25 Epub Date: 2025-07-22 DOI:10.12968/hmed.2025.0129
Linbing Chen, Ye Ouyang, Chunyu Cheng, Zhenfei Chen, Liping Wang
{"title":"Validity and Reliability of a Chinese-Tailored Scale for the Evaluation of End-of-Life Care in Dementia Patients.","authors":"Linbing Chen, Ye Ouyang, Chunyu Cheng, Zhenfei Chen, Liping Wang","doi":"10.12968/hmed.2025.0129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aims/Background</b> Highly valid and reliable instruments for evaluating end-of-life care for dementia patients and caregivers are lacking in clinical settings, hampering the progress of pertinent research on palliative care in China. Therefore, the present work focused on assessing the adaptability and reliability of the Chinese version of the End-of-Life Care in Dementia (EOLD) scale in evaluating nursing home caregivers who have cared for advanced dementia patients. <b>Methods</b> A convenience sample of 170 caregivers was recruited from five nursing homes. The data collection instruments included a demographic form and the Chinese version of the EOLD scale. The Chinese version of the EOLD scale comprises three subscales: Satisfaction with Care at the End of Life in Dementia (SWC-EOLD); Symptom Management at the End of Life in Dementia (SM-EOLD), which includes further scales for psychological symptoms and physical symptoms; and the Comfort Assessment in Dying with Dementia (CAD-EOLD), which encompasses further evaluation scales for physical distress, dying symptoms, well-being, and emotional distress. <b>Results</b> The reliability of all the scales ranged from satisfactory to good, with SWC-EOLD's α = 0.806, SM-EOLD's α = 0.879, and CAD-EOLD's α = 0.827. <b>Conclusion</b> In this study, a preliminary reliability assessment on the Chinese version of the EOLD scale was conducted, revealing that the three subscales exhibit strong internal consistency in reliability and structural validity. These results further confirm the applicability of the EOLD scale in dementia research within the context of palliative care.</p>","PeriodicalId":9256,"journal":{"name":"British journal of hospital medicine","volume":"86 7","pages":"1-18"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of hospital medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12968/hmed.2025.0129","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims/Background Highly valid and reliable instruments for evaluating end-of-life care for dementia patients and caregivers are lacking in clinical settings, hampering the progress of pertinent research on palliative care in China. Therefore, the present work focused on assessing the adaptability and reliability of the Chinese version of the End-of-Life Care in Dementia (EOLD) scale in evaluating nursing home caregivers who have cared for advanced dementia patients. Methods A convenience sample of 170 caregivers was recruited from five nursing homes. The data collection instruments included a demographic form and the Chinese version of the EOLD scale. The Chinese version of the EOLD scale comprises three subscales: Satisfaction with Care at the End of Life in Dementia (SWC-EOLD); Symptom Management at the End of Life in Dementia (SM-EOLD), which includes further scales for psychological symptoms and physical symptoms; and the Comfort Assessment in Dying with Dementia (CAD-EOLD), which encompasses further evaluation scales for physical distress, dying symptoms, well-being, and emotional distress. Results The reliability of all the scales ranged from satisfactory to good, with SWC-EOLD's α = 0.806, SM-EOLD's α = 0.879, and CAD-EOLD's α = 0.827. Conclusion In this study, a preliminary reliability assessment on the Chinese version of the EOLD scale was conducted, revealing that the three subscales exhibit strong internal consistency in reliability and structural validity. These results further confirm the applicability of the EOLD scale in dementia research within the context of palliative care.

中国定制痴呆患者临终关怀评估量表的效度和信度。
目的/背景临床缺乏高度有效和可靠的评估痴呆症患者和护理者临终关怀的工具,阻碍了中国姑息治疗相关研究的进展。因此,本研究的重点是评估中文版《老年痴呆临终关怀量表》在评估老年痴呆患者照护者中的适应性和可靠性。方法选取5家养老院护理人员170人作为方便样本。数据收集工具包括人口统计表格和中文版EOLD量表。中文版EOLD量表包括三个子量表:老年痴呆患者临终关怀满意度(SWC-EOLD);痴呆症临终症状管理(SM-EOLD),其中包括进一步的心理症状和身体症状量表;以及临终痴呆患者舒适度评估(CAD-EOLD),其中包括对身体痛苦、临终症状、幸福感和情绪痛苦的进一步评估量表。结果各量表的信度从满意到良好,其中SWC-EOLD的信度α = 0.806, SM-EOLD的信度α = 0.879, CAD-EOLD的信度α = 0.827。结论本研究对中文版EOLD量表进行了初步信度评估,发现三个子量表在信度和结构效度上具有较强的内部一致性。这些结果进一步证实了EOLD量表在姑息治疗背景下痴呆研究中的适用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
British journal of hospital medicine
British journal of hospital medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
176
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: British Journal of Hospital Medicine was established in 1966, and is still true to its origins: a monthly, peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary review journal for hospital doctors and doctors in training. The journal publishes an authoritative mix of clinical reviews, education and training updates, quality improvement projects and case reports, and book reviews from recognized leaders in the profession. The Core Training for Doctors section provides clinical information in an easily accessible format for doctors in training. British Journal of Hospital Medicine is an invaluable resource for hospital doctors at all stages of their career. The journal is indexed on Medline, CINAHL, the Sociedad Iberoamericana de Información Científica and Scopus.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信