从不同角度评估整体护理的三种工具的发展、效度和信度。

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare Pub Date : 2025-06-24 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/JMDH.S520128
Chun-Kai Fang, Shih-Hsuan Pi, In-Fun Li
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:整体护理强调以综合方法解决身体、心理、社会和精神需求,但从不同角度验证的评估工具仍然有限。目的:开发和验证三种整体护理评估工具:整体护理质量评估量表-患者(HCQAS-P)、家庭(HCQAS-F)和专业人员整体护理知识评估量表(HCKAS)。方法:采用混合方法设计,包括定性访谈和横断面调查。对1017名参与者的反馈进行了心理测量分析,其中包括321名患者,298名家属和398名专业人员。结果:定性发现确定了五个核心整体护理主题。共有1,017名参与者完成了定量研究,包括患者(n = 321)、家庭成员(n = 298)和医疗保健专业人员(n = 398)。HCQAS-P和HCQAS-F具有较高的内部一致性(Cronbach's α > 0.92);HCKAS呈现出四要素结构(体制、能力、有效性、成本)。整体护理质量与共同决策(γ = 0.542)和良好的死亡感知(γ = 0.250)正相关,与士气低落(γ = -0.246)和痛苦(γ = -0.184)负相关。医疗服务提供者在精神和社会关怀方面得分最低。结论:经验证的工具为整体护理提供了一个全面的评估框架。研究结果强调了共同决策的价值和加强非身体护理方面培训的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

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 Multidisciplinary Healthcare
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare Nursing-General Nursing
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
3.00%
发文量
287
审稿时长
16 weeks
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.
×
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