开发临床医生医疗沟通自我效能(SEMC)测量工具。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
David B Feldman, Mark A O'Rourke, Benjamin W Corn, Matthew F Hudson, Naimik Patel, Rajiv Agarwal, Valerie L Fraser, Heidi Deininger, Lauren A Fowler, Marie A Bakitas, Robert A Krouse, Ishwaria M Subbiah
{"title":"开发临床医生医疗沟通自我效能(SEMC)测量工具。","authors":"David B Feldman, Mark A O'Rourke, Benjamin W Corn, Matthew F Hudson, Naimik Patel, Rajiv Agarwal, Valerie L Fraser, Heidi Deininger, Lauren A Fowler, Marie A Bakitas, Robert A Krouse, Ishwaria M Subbiah","doi":"10.1136/bmjspcare-2022-003593","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Studies of clinician-patient communication have used varied, ad hoc measures for communication efficacy. We developed and validated the Self-Efficacy for Medical Communication (SEMC) scale as a standard, quantitative measure of clinician-reported skills in communicating difficult news.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using evidence-based scale development guidelines, we created two 16-item forms of the SEMC, one assessing communication with patients and one assessing communication with families. Clinicians providing oncological care in four organisations were invited to participate and provided consent. Participant demographics, responses to the SEMC items and responses to convergent and discriminant measures (those expected to relate strongly and weakly to the SEMC) were collected online. We performed analyses to determine the convergent and discriminant validity of the SEMC as well as its reliability and factor structure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 221 oncology clinicians (including physicians, residents, fellows, medical students, nurses, nurse practitioners and physician assistants) participated. The patient and family forms both demonstrated high internal consistency reliability (alpha=0.94 and 0.96, respectively) and were strongly correlated with one another (r=0.95, p<0.001). Exploratory factor analysis demonstrated that the SEMC measures a unitary construct (eigenvalue=9.0), and its higher mean correlation with convergent (r=0.46) than discriminant (r=0.22) measures further supported its validity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings support the SEMC's validity and reliability as a measure of clinician-rated communication skills regarding conducting difficult conversations with patients and families. It provides a useful standard tool for future research in oncology provider-patient serious illness communication.</p>","PeriodicalId":9136,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care","volume":" ","pages":"e2671-e2678"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development of a measure of clinicians' self-efficacy for medical communication (SEMC).\",\"authors\":\"David B Feldman, Mark A O'Rourke, Benjamin W Corn, Matthew F Hudson, Naimik Patel, Rajiv Agarwal, Valerie L Fraser, Heidi Deininger, Lauren A Fowler, Marie A Bakitas, Robert A Krouse, Ishwaria M Subbiah\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjspcare-2022-003593\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Studies of clinician-patient communication have used varied, ad hoc measures for communication efficacy. We developed and validated the Self-Efficacy for Medical Communication (SEMC) scale as a standard, quantitative measure of clinician-reported skills in communicating difficult news.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using evidence-based scale development guidelines, we created two 16-item forms of the SEMC, one assessing communication with patients and one assessing communication with families. Clinicians providing oncological care in four organisations were invited to participate and provided consent. Participant demographics, responses to the SEMC items and responses to convergent and discriminant measures (those expected to relate strongly and weakly to the SEMC) were collected online. We performed analyses to determine the convergent and discriminant validity of the SEMC as well as its reliability and factor structure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 221 oncology clinicians (including physicians, residents, fellows, medical students, nurses, nurse practitioners and physician assistants) participated. The patient and family forms both demonstrated high internal consistency reliability (alpha=0.94 and 0.96, respectively) and were strongly correlated with one another (r=0.95, p<0.001). Exploratory factor analysis demonstrated that the SEMC measures a unitary construct (eigenvalue=9.0), and its higher mean correlation with convergent (r=0.46) than discriminant (r=0.22) measures further supported its validity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings support the SEMC's validity and reliability as a measure of clinician-rated communication skills regarding conducting difficult conversations with patients and families. It provides a useful standard tool for future research in oncology provider-patient serious illness communication.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9136,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e2671-e2678\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2022-003593\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2022-003593","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:有关临床医生与患者沟通的研究使用了各种临时性的沟通效能测量方法。我们开发并验证了医学沟通自我效能量表(SEMC),将其作为临床医生报告的疑难消息沟通技巧的标准量化测量方法:我们采用循证量表编制指南,编制了两个 16 个项目的 SEMC 表,一个用于评估与患者的沟通,另一个用于评估与家属的沟通。我们邀请了四家机构中提供肿瘤治疗的临床医生参与,并征得了他们的同意。我们在线收集了参与者的人口统计数据、对 SEMC 项目的回答以及对收敛性和判别性测量(预计与 SEMC 关系密切和关系较弱的测量)的回答。我们进行了分析,以确定 SEMC 的收敛性和区分性有效性及其可靠性和因子结构:共有 221 名肿瘤临床医生(包括医生、住院医师、研究员、医学生、护士、执业护师和医生助理)参与了调查。患者表和家属表均显示出较高的内部一致性可靠性(α分别为0.94和0.96),并且相互之间具有较强的相关性(r=0.95,p结论:我们的研究结果支持 SEMC 作为衡量临床医生与患者和家属进行困难谈话时的沟通技巧的有效性和可靠性。它为今后肿瘤医患重症沟通研究提供了一个有用的标准工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Development of a measure of clinicians' self-efficacy for medical communication (SEMC).

Objectives: Studies of clinician-patient communication have used varied, ad hoc measures for communication efficacy. We developed and validated the Self-Efficacy for Medical Communication (SEMC) scale as a standard, quantitative measure of clinician-reported skills in communicating difficult news.

Methods: Using evidence-based scale development guidelines, we created two 16-item forms of the SEMC, one assessing communication with patients and one assessing communication with families. Clinicians providing oncological care in four organisations were invited to participate and provided consent. Participant demographics, responses to the SEMC items and responses to convergent and discriminant measures (those expected to relate strongly and weakly to the SEMC) were collected online. We performed analyses to determine the convergent and discriminant validity of the SEMC as well as its reliability and factor structure.

Results: Overall, 221 oncology clinicians (including physicians, residents, fellows, medical students, nurses, nurse practitioners and physician assistants) participated. The patient and family forms both demonstrated high internal consistency reliability (alpha=0.94 and 0.96, respectively) and were strongly correlated with one another (r=0.95, p<0.001). Exploratory factor analysis demonstrated that the SEMC measures a unitary construct (eigenvalue=9.0), and its higher mean correlation with convergent (r=0.46) than discriminant (r=0.22) measures further supported its validity.

Conclusions: Our findings support the SEMC's validity and reliability as a measure of clinician-rated communication skills regarding conducting difficult conversations with patients and families. It provides a useful standard tool for future research in oncology provider-patient serious illness communication.

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
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
7.40%
发文量
170
期刊介绍: Published quarterly in print and continuously online, BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care aims to connect many disciplines and specialties throughout the world by providing high quality, clinically relevant research, reviews, comment, information and news of international importance. We hold an inclusive view of supportive and palliative care research and we are able to call on expertise to critique the whole range of methodologies within the subject, including those working in transitional research, clinical trials, epidemiology, behavioural sciences, ethics and health service research. Articles with relevance to clinical practice and clinical service development will be considered for publication. In an international context, many different categories of clinician and healthcare workers do clinical work associated with palliative medicine, specialist or generalist palliative care, supportive care, psychosocial-oncology and end of life care. We wish to engage many specialties, not only those traditionally associated with supportive and palliative care. We hope to extend the readership to doctors, nurses, other healthcare workers and researchers in medical and surgical specialties, including but not limited to cardiology, gastroenterology, geriatrics, neurology, oncology, paediatrics, primary care, psychiatry, psychology, renal medicine, respiratory medicine.
×
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