The Chinese Mandarin COMHON Index and Braden Scale to assess pressure injury risk in intensive care: An inter-rater reliability and convergent validity study

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Australian Critical Care Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.aucc.2024.05.015
Josephine Lovegrove RN, PhD , Paul Fulbrook RN, PhD , Cui Yuan RN, MN , Frances Lin RN, PhD , Xian-Liang Liu RN, MD, PhD
{"title":"The Chinese Mandarin COMHON Index and Braden Scale to assess pressure injury risk in intensive care: An inter-rater reliability and convergent validity study","authors":"Josephine Lovegrove RN, PhD ,&nbsp;Paul Fulbrook RN, PhD ,&nbsp;Cui Yuan RN, MN ,&nbsp;Frances Lin RN, PhD ,&nbsp;Xian-Liang Liu RN, MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.aucc.2024.05.015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The COMHON Index is an intensive-care-specific pressure injury risk assessment tool, which has demonstrated promising psychometric properties. It has been translated into Chinese Mandarin but requires inter-rater reliability testing and comparison to the standard care instrument (Braden Scale) before clinical use.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>This study aimed to test and compare the inter-rater reliability and convergent validity of the Chinese Mandarin versions of the COMHON Index and Braden Scale.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The study was conducted in a Chinese comprehensive intensive care unit. Based on a sample size calculation, five registered nurse raters with at least 6-months experience independently conducted risk assessments for 20 adult patients using both the COMHON Index and Braden Scale. Intraclass correlations (ICC) for inter-rater reliability, standard errors of measurement (SEM), and minimally detectable change (MDC) were calculated. Convergent validity was assessed using Pearson Product Moment Correlation for sum scores and Spearman's rho for subscales.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Inter-rater reliability of COMHON Index and Braden Scale sum scores was very high (ICC [1,1] = 0.973; [95% confidence interval 0.949–0.988]; SEM 0.54; MDC 1.50) and high (ICC [1,1] = 0.891; [95% confidence interval 0.793-0.951]; SEM 0.93; MDC 2.57), respectively. All COMHON-Index subscales demonstrated ICC values &gt;0.6, whereas two Braden Scale subscales (<em>Mobility</em>, <em>Activity</em>) were below this threshold. Instrument sum scores were strongly correlated (Pearson's <em>r =</em> −0.76 [<em>r</em><sup><em>2</em></sup> = 0.58]; <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), as were three subscale item pairs (mobility <em>r</em><sub><em>s</em></sub> <em>=</em> −0.56 [<em>r</em><sup><em>2</em></sup> = 0.32]; nutrition <em>r</em><sub><em>s</em></sub> <em>=</em> −0.63 [<em>r</em><sup><em>2</em></sup> = 0.39]; level of consciousness/sensory perception <em>r</em><sub><em>s</em></sub> <em>=</em> −0.67 [<em>r</em><sup><em>2</em></sup> = 0.45] <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Both the COMHON Index and Braden Scale demonstrated high levels of inter-rater reliability and measured similar constructs. However, the COMHON Index demonstrated superior inter-rater reliability and the results suggest that it better detects changes in patient condition and subsequently pressure injury risk. Further testing is recommended.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51239,"journal":{"name":"Australian Critical Care","volume":"38 1","pages":"Article 101093"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1036731424002030","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The COMHON Index is an intensive-care-specific pressure injury risk assessment tool, which has demonstrated promising psychometric properties. It has been translated into Chinese Mandarin but requires inter-rater reliability testing and comparison to the standard care instrument (Braden Scale) before clinical use.

Objectives

This study aimed to test and compare the inter-rater reliability and convergent validity of the Chinese Mandarin versions of the COMHON Index and Braden Scale.

Methods

The study was conducted in a Chinese comprehensive intensive care unit. Based on a sample size calculation, five registered nurse raters with at least 6-months experience independently conducted risk assessments for 20 adult patients using both the COMHON Index and Braden Scale. Intraclass correlations (ICC) for inter-rater reliability, standard errors of measurement (SEM), and minimally detectable change (MDC) were calculated. Convergent validity was assessed using Pearson Product Moment Correlation for sum scores and Spearman's rho for subscales.

Results

Inter-rater reliability of COMHON Index and Braden Scale sum scores was very high (ICC [1,1] = 0.973; [95% confidence interval 0.949–0.988]; SEM 0.54; MDC 1.50) and high (ICC [1,1] = 0.891; [95% confidence interval 0.793-0.951]; SEM 0.93; MDC 2.57), respectively. All COMHON-Index subscales demonstrated ICC values >0.6, whereas two Braden Scale subscales (Mobility, Activity) were below this threshold. Instrument sum scores were strongly correlated (Pearson's r = −0.76 [r2 = 0.58]; p < 0.001), as were three subscale item pairs (mobility rs = −0.56 [r2 = 0.32]; nutrition rs = −0.63 [r2 = 0.39]; level of consciousness/sensory perception rs = −0.67 [r2 = 0.45] p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Both the COMHON Index and Braden Scale demonstrated high levels of inter-rater reliability and measured similar constructs. However, the COMHON Index demonstrated superior inter-rater reliability and the results suggest that it better detects changes in patient condition and subsequently pressure injury risk. Further testing is recommended.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估重症监护中压伤风险的中文普通话 COMHON 指数和 Braden 量表:评分者间信度和收敛效度研究。
背景:COMHON指数是一种重症监护专用的压力损伤风险评估工具,其心理测量学特性很有前途。它已被翻译成中文普通话,但在临床使用前需要进行评分者间信度测试,并与标准护理工具(布莱登量表)进行比较:本研究旨在测试和比较中文普通话版 COMHON 指数和 Braden 量表的评分者间信度和收敛效度:研究在一家中国综合重症监护病房进行。根据样本量计算,5 名至少有 6 个月经验的注册护士评分员使用 COMHON 指数和布莱登量表独立对 20 名成年患者进行了风险评估。计算了评分者间可靠性的类内相关性(ICC)、测量标准误差(SEM)和最小可检测变化(MDC)。采用皮尔逊乘积矩相关(Pearson Product Moment Correlation)评估总分的收敛效度,采用斯皮尔曼相关(Spearman's rho)评估子量表的收敛效度:结果:COMHON指数和布莱登量表总分的评分者间可靠性非常高(ICC [1,1] = 0.973; [95% 置信区间 0.949-0.988]; SEM 0.54; MDC 1.50),评分者间可靠性也很高(ICC [1,1] = 0.891; [95% 置信区间 0.793-0.951]; SEM 0.93; MDC 2.57)。所有COMHON-Index分量表的ICC值均大于0.6,而布莱登量表的两个分量表(移动能力和活动能力)低于这一临界值。工具总分具有很强的相关性(Pearson's r = -0.76 [r2 = 0.58];P s= -0.56 [r2 = 0.32];营养 rs= -0.63 [r2 = 0.39];意识水平/感官知觉 rs= -0.67 [r2 = 0.45] P 结论:COMHON 指数和布莱登量表都具有很强的相关性:COMHON指数和布莱登量表均显示出较高的评分者间可靠性,且测量的构念相似。不过,COMHON 指数的评分者间可靠性更高,结果表明它能更好地检测患者状况的变化,进而发现压伤风险。建议进一步测试。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Australian Critical Care
Australian Critical Care NURSING-NURSING
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
148
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Australian Critical Care is the official journal of the Australian College of Critical Care Nurses (ACCCN). It is a bi-monthly peer-reviewed journal, providing clinically relevant research, reviews and articles of interest to the critical care community. Australian Critical Care publishes peer-reviewed scholarly papers that report research findings, research-based reviews, discussion papers and commentaries which are of interest to an international readership of critical care practitioners, educators, administrators and researchers. Interprofessional articles are welcomed.
期刊最新文献
Wellbeing as perceived and experienced by intensive care unit nurses: An interpretive qualitative analysis Employer-provided wellbeing support for nurses working in intensive care units: A national cross-sectional study Understanding crisis needs among family caregivers of patients in critical care: A qualitative analysis Antidepressant use, but not polypharmacy, is associated with worse outcomes after in-hospital cardiac arrest in older people “Because I couldn't understand and respond”: A mixed-method study examining the impact of language barriers on patient experiences of intensive care unit outreach team care
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1