住院治疗后的应对困难:德文版出院后应对困难量表的有效性和可靠性。

IF 2.4 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Matthias Marsall, Thorsten Hornung, Alexander Bäuerle, Marianne E Weiss, Martin Teufel, Matthias Weigl
{"title":"住院治疗后的应对困难:德文版出院后应对困难量表的有效性和可靠性。","authors":"Matthias Marsall, Thorsten Hornung, Alexander Bäuerle, Marianne E Weiss, Martin Teufel, Matthias Weigl","doi":"10.1186/s41687-024-00806-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients transitioning between different care contexts are at increased risk of experiencing adverse events. In particular, being discharged to home after inpatient treatment involves significant risks. However, there is a lack of valid and internationally comparable assessment tools on patients' experiences of difficulties following hospital discharge. Therefore, this study aimed to adapt and validate the German version of the post-discharge coping difficulty scale (PDCDS-G).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients were recruited at a German university hospital. 815 adult patients participated in a self-report survey following an inpatient stay of at least three days. Factorial validity of the PDCDS-G was evaluated via factor analyses. Further, examination of measurement invariance was performed. To establish criterion validity, associations with patients' self-reported health status and occurrence of patient safety were determined. Further, group differences regarding patient characteristics, hospitalization factors, and survey-related variables were examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Factorial validity of the PDCDS-G was confirmed by a two-factorial model with good model fit. Both factors showed good to excellent reliability. The two-factor model achieved measurement invariance across all patient characteristics, hospitalization factors, and survey-related variables. Significant relationships with patients' health status and the occurrence of patient safety incidents corroborate criterion validity of the PDCDS-G. Differential associations of the two PDCDS-G factors regarding patient characteristics, hospitalization, and survey-related variables were found.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Construct and criterion validity, as well as the reliability of the PDCDS-G, were verified. Further, instrument's measurement invariance was confirmed allowing use of the scale for the interpretation of group differences and comparisons between studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The PDCDS-G provides a validated and comparable patient-reported outcomes measure for patient experiences after hospital discharge to home. The PDCDS-G can be used for patient surveys in quality or patient safety improvement in care transition processes.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":"8 1","pages":"125"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11538096/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Coping difficulties after inpatient hospital treatment: validity and reliability of the German version of the post-discharge coping difficulty scale.\",\"authors\":\"Matthias Marsall, Thorsten Hornung, Alexander Bäuerle, Marianne E Weiss, Martin Teufel, Matthias Weigl\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41687-024-00806-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients transitioning between different care contexts are at increased risk of experiencing adverse events. In particular, being discharged to home after inpatient treatment involves significant risks. However, there is a lack of valid and internationally comparable assessment tools on patients' experiences of difficulties following hospital discharge. Therefore, this study aimed to adapt and validate the German version of the post-discharge coping difficulty scale (PDCDS-G).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients were recruited at a German university hospital. 815 adult patients participated in a self-report survey following an inpatient stay of at least three days. Factorial validity of the PDCDS-G was evaluated via factor analyses. Further, examination of measurement invariance was performed. To establish criterion validity, associations with patients' self-reported health status and occurrence of patient safety were determined. Further, group differences regarding patient characteristics, hospitalization factors, and survey-related variables were examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Factorial validity of the PDCDS-G was confirmed by a two-factorial model with good model fit. Both factors showed good to excellent reliability. The two-factor model achieved measurement invariance across all patient characteristics, hospitalization factors, and survey-related variables. Significant relationships with patients' health status and the occurrence of patient safety incidents corroborate criterion validity of the PDCDS-G. Differential associations of the two PDCDS-G factors regarding patient characteristics, hospitalization, and survey-related variables were found.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Construct and criterion validity, as well as the reliability of the PDCDS-G, were verified. Further, instrument's measurement invariance was confirmed allowing use of the scale for the interpretation of group differences and comparisons between studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The PDCDS-G provides a validated and comparable patient-reported outcomes measure for patient experiences after hospital discharge to home. The PDCDS-G can be used for patient surveys in quality or patient safety improvement in care transition processes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36660,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"125\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11538096/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-024-00806-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-024-00806-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在不同护理环境之间转换的患者发生不良事件的风险会增加。尤其是在住院治疗后出院回家,会面临很大的风险。然而,目前还缺乏有效且具有国际可比性的评估工具来评估患者在出院后遇到的困难。因此,本研究旨在改编并验证德国版出院后应对困难量表(PDCDS-G):方法:在一家德国大学医院招募患者。815 名成年患者在住院至少三天后参加了自我报告调查。通过因子分析评估了 PDCDS-G 的因子有效性。此外,还对测量不变性进行了检查。为了确定标准效度,还确定了患者自我报告的健康状况与患者安全事件之间的关联。此外,还检查了患者特征、住院因素和调查相关变量的组间差异:结果:双因子模型证实了 PDCDS-G 的因子有效性,模型拟合度良好。两个因子均显示出良好至卓越的可靠性。双因子模型在所有患者特征、住院因素和调查相关变量之间都实现了测量不变性。与患者健康状况和患者安全事件发生率之间的显著关系证实了 PDCDS-G 的标准有效性。PDCDS-G的两个因子与患者特征、住院情况和调查相关变量之间存在差异:讨论:PDCDS-G 的结构效度和标准效度以及可靠性均得到了验证。此外,该量表的测量不变性也得到了证实,可用于解释群体差异和比较不同研究:PDCDS-G为患者出院回家后的经历提供了一个经过验证且具有可比性的患者报告结果测量方法。PDCDS-G可用于患者调查,以改善护理过渡流程中的质量或患者安全。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Coping difficulties after inpatient hospital treatment: validity and reliability of the German version of the post-discharge coping difficulty scale.

Background: Patients transitioning between different care contexts are at increased risk of experiencing adverse events. In particular, being discharged to home after inpatient treatment involves significant risks. However, there is a lack of valid and internationally comparable assessment tools on patients' experiences of difficulties following hospital discharge. Therefore, this study aimed to adapt and validate the German version of the post-discharge coping difficulty scale (PDCDS-G).

Methods: Patients were recruited at a German university hospital. 815 adult patients participated in a self-report survey following an inpatient stay of at least three days. Factorial validity of the PDCDS-G was evaluated via factor analyses. Further, examination of measurement invariance was performed. To establish criterion validity, associations with patients' self-reported health status and occurrence of patient safety were determined. Further, group differences regarding patient characteristics, hospitalization factors, and survey-related variables were examined.

Results: Factorial validity of the PDCDS-G was confirmed by a two-factorial model with good model fit. Both factors showed good to excellent reliability. The two-factor model achieved measurement invariance across all patient characteristics, hospitalization factors, and survey-related variables. Significant relationships with patients' health status and the occurrence of patient safety incidents corroborate criterion validity of the PDCDS-G. Differential associations of the two PDCDS-G factors regarding patient characteristics, hospitalization, and survey-related variables were found.

Discussion: Construct and criterion validity, as well as the reliability of the PDCDS-G, were verified. Further, instrument's measurement invariance was confirmed allowing use of the scale for the interpretation of group differences and comparisons between studies.

Conclusions: The PDCDS-G provides a validated and comparable patient-reported outcomes measure for patient experiences after hospital discharge to home. The PDCDS-G can be used for patient surveys in quality or patient safety improvement in care transition processes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes Health Professions-Health Information Management
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
120
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信