{"title":"从不同角度评估整体护理的三种工具的发展、效度和信度。","authors":"Chun-Kai Fang, Shih-Hsuan Pi, In-Fun Li","doi":"10.2147/JMDH.S520128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Holistic care emphasizes an integrated approach addressing physical, psychological, social, and spiritual needs, yet validated assessment tools from diverse perspectives remain limited.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To develop and validate three holistic care assessment tools: the Holistic Care Quality Assessment Scale - Patient (HCQAS-P), Family (HCQAS-F), and the Holistic Care Knowledge Assessment Scale (HCKAS) for professionals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods design included qualitative interviews and a cross-sectional survey at two Taiwanese hospitals. Psychometric analyses were conducted on responses from 1,017 participants: 321 patients, 298 family members, and 398 professionals.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Qualitative findings identified five core holistic care themes. A total of 1,017 participants completed the quantitative study, including patients (n = 321), family members (n = 298), and healthcare professionals (n = 398). HCQAS-P and HCQAS-F showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's α > 0.92); HCKAS revealed a four-factor structure (institutional, competence, effectiveness, cost). Holistic care quality positively correlated with shared decision-making (γ = 0.542) and good death perceptions (γ = 0.250), and negatively with demoralization (γ = -0.246) and distress (γ = -0.184). Providers scored lowest in spiritual and social care.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The validated tools offer a comprehensive assessment framework for holistic care. Findings highlight the value of shared decision-making and the need to strengthen training in non-physical care aspects.</p>","PeriodicalId":16357,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare","volume":"18 ","pages":"3647-3671"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12205709/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development, Validity, and Reliability of Three Instruments to Assess Holistic Care from Different Perspectives.\",\"authors\":\"Chun-Kai Fang, Shih-Hsuan Pi, In-Fun Li\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/JMDH.S520128\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Holistic care emphasizes an integrated approach addressing physical, psychological, social, and spiritual needs, yet validated assessment tools from diverse perspectives remain limited.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To develop and validate three holistic care assessment tools: the Holistic Care Quality Assessment Scale - Patient (HCQAS-P), Family (HCQAS-F), and the Holistic Care Knowledge Assessment Scale (HCKAS) for professionals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods design included qualitative interviews and a cross-sectional survey at two Taiwanese hospitals. Psychometric analyses were conducted on responses from 1,017 participants: 321 patients, 298 family members, and 398 professionals.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Qualitative findings identified five core holistic care themes. A total of 1,017 participants completed the quantitative study, including patients (n = 321), family members (n = 298), and healthcare professionals (n = 398). HCQAS-P and HCQAS-F showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's α > 0.92); HCKAS revealed a four-factor structure (institutional, competence, effectiveness, cost). Holistic care quality positively correlated with shared decision-making (γ = 0.542) and good death perceptions (γ = 0.250), and negatively with demoralization (γ = -0.246) and distress (γ = -0.184). Providers scored lowest in spiritual and social care.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The validated tools offer a comprehensive assessment framework for holistic care. Findings highlight the value of shared decision-making and the need to strengthen training in non-physical care aspects.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16357,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"3647-3671\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12205709/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S520128\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S520128","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Development, Validity, and Reliability of Three Instruments to Assess Holistic Care from Different Perspectives.
Background: Holistic care emphasizes an integrated approach addressing physical, psychological, social, and spiritual needs, yet validated assessment tools from diverse perspectives remain limited.
Aim: To develop and validate three holistic care assessment tools: the Holistic Care Quality Assessment Scale - Patient (HCQAS-P), Family (HCQAS-F), and the Holistic Care Knowledge Assessment Scale (HCKAS) for professionals.
Methods: A mixed-methods design included qualitative interviews and a cross-sectional survey at two Taiwanese hospitals. Psychometric analyses were conducted on responses from 1,017 participants: 321 patients, 298 family members, and 398 professionals.
Results: Qualitative findings identified five core holistic care themes. A total of 1,017 participants completed the quantitative study, including patients (n = 321), family members (n = 298), and healthcare professionals (n = 398). HCQAS-P and HCQAS-F showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's α > 0.92); HCKAS revealed a four-factor structure (institutional, competence, effectiveness, cost). Holistic care quality positively correlated with shared decision-making (γ = 0.542) and good death perceptions (γ = 0.250), and negatively with demoralization (γ = -0.246) and distress (γ = -0.184). Providers scored lowest in spiritual and social care.
Conclusion: The validated tools offer a comprehensive assessment framework for holistic care. Findings highlight the value of shared decision-making and the need to strengthen training in non-physical care aspects.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare (JMDH) aims to represent and publish research in healthcare areas delivered by practitioners of different disciplines. This includes studies and reviews conducted by multidisciplinary teams as well as research which evaluates or reports the results or conduct of such teams or healthcare processes in general. The journal covers a very wide range of areas and we welcome submissions from practitioners at all levels and from all over the world. Good healthcare is not bounded by person, place or time and the journal aims to reflect this. The JMDH is published as an open-access journal to allow this wide range of practical, patient relevant research to be immediately available to practitioners who can access and use it immediately upon publication.