Development of a Hospice Perceptions Instrument for Diverse Patients and Families: Establishing Content and Face Validity

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine Pub Date : 2024-09-10 DOI:10.1177/10499091241284262
Cara L. Wallace, Divya S. Subramaniam, Ricardo Wray, Karen Bullock, Dani Dant, Kathryn Coccia, Antonia V. Bennett, Patrick White, Verna L. Hendricks-Ferguson
{"title":"Development of a Hospice Perceptions Instrument for Diverse Patients and Families: Establishing Content and Face Validity","authors":"Cara L. Wallace, Divya S. Subramaniam, Ricardo Wray, Karen Bullock, Dani Dant, Kathryn Coccia, Antonia V. Bennett, Patrick White, Verna L. Hendricks-Ferguson","doi":"10.1177/10499091241284262","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ContextFor many, the perception of “hospice” is synonymous with “death.” Even clinicians struggle to have conversations that distinguish between hospice and palliative care for fear that discussing hospice may diminish hope. To date, there are no existing measurement tools to evaluate patient and family perceptions of hospice care.ObjectiveThis research aimed to develop a Hospice Perceptions Instrument (HPI) to capture these perceptions among diverse patients and families.MethodsBuilding on previous studies and literature, 79 potential items were drafted for the instrument. Our interprofessional team independently and collectively evaluated these, resulting in 36 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Overarching domains include (1) hospice philosophy and definitions; (2) hospice services; (3) values; and (4) counter-perceptions. Sixteen national subject matter experts from various professions and roles were invited to participate in the content-validity index and five hospice caregivers were invited to participate in face validity.ResultsFourteen experts responded, with ten meeting inclusion criteria: one physician, four nurses, three social workers, and two chaplains. Six of the ten identified as Black. Three items were removed (I-CVI ranged from 0.5-06), and nine items were revised (I-CVI ranged from 0.6-07). The overall Content Validity Index (CVI) was 0.83, indicating excellent content validity. After revisions, five hospice caregivers assessed face validity and no changes were made based on feedback.ConclusionResults reveal a disconnect between professional expertise and patient/family voices related to hospice perceptions. Development of this instrument invites a better understanding of perceptions leading to new opportunities for patient/family engagement.","PeriodicalId":50810,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine","volume":"11 1","pages":"10499091241284262"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091241284262","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

Abstract

ContextFor many, the perception of “hospice” is synonymous with “death.” Even clinicians struggle to have conversations that distinguish between hospice and palliative care for fear that discussing hospice may diminish hope. To date, there are no existing measurement tools to evaluate patient and family perceptions of hospice care.ObjectiveThis research aimed to develop a Hospice Perceptions Instrument (HPI) to capture these perceptions among diverse patients and families.MethodsBuilding on previous studies and literature, 79 potential items were drafted for the instrument. Our interprofessional team independently and collectively evaluated these, resulting in 36 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Overarching domains include (1) hospice philosophy and definitions; (2) hospice services; (3) values; and (4) counter-perceptions. Sixteen national subject matter experts from various professions and roles were invited to participate in the content-validity index and five hospice caregivers were invited to participate in face validity.ResultsFourteen experts responded, with ten meeting inclusion criteria: one physician, four nurses, three social workers, and two chaplains. Six of the ten identified as Black. Three items were removed (I-CVI ranged from 0.5-06), and nine items were revised (I-CVI ranged from 0.6-07). The overall Content Validity Index (CVI) was 0.83, indicating excellent content validity. After revisions, five hospice caregivers assessed face validity and no changes were made based on feedback.ConclusionResults reveal a disconnect between professional expertise and patient/family voices related to hospice perceptions. Development of this instrument invites a better understanding of perceptions leading to new opportunities for patient/family engagement.
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
为不同患者和家属开发安宁疗护感知工具:建立内容和表面有效性
背景对许多人来说,"临终关怀 "是 "死亡 "的代名词。即使是临床医生也很难在谈话中区分安宁疗护和姑息关怀,因为他们担心讨论安宁疗护会削弱希望。迄今为止,还没有现成的测量工具来评估病人和家属对安宁疗护的看法。本研究旨在开发一种安宁疗护感知工具(HPI),以捕捉不同病人和家属对安宁疗护的看法。我们的跨专业团队对这些项目进行了独立和集体评估,最终确定了 36 个项目,采用 5 点李克特量表评分。总体领域包括:(1)安宁疗护理念和定义;(2)安宁疗护服务;(3)价值观;以及(4)反认知。邀请了 16 位来自不同专业和角色的国内主题专家参与内容效度指数,并邀请了 5 位安宁疗护照护者参与面效度。结果 14 位专家做出了回应,其中 10 位符合纳入标准:1 位医生、4 位护士、3 位社工和 2 位牧师。十位专家中有六位自称是黑人。删除了三个项目(I-CVI 介于 0.5-06 之间),修订了九个项目(I-CVI 介于 0.6-07 之间)。总体内容效度指数(CVI)为 0.83,表明内容效度极佳。修订后,五名安宁疗护护理人员对表面效度进行了评估,根据反馈意见未做任何修改。结论结果显示,在安宁疗护认知方面,专业知识与患者/家属的声音之间存在脱节。该工具的开发有助于更好地了解患者/家属的看法,从而为患者/家属的参与提供新的机会。
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
American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine
American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.30%
发文量
169
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine (AJHPM) is a peer-reviewed journal, published eight times a year. In 30 years of publication, AJHPM has highlighted the interdisciplinary team approach to hospice and palliative medicine as related to the care of the patient and family. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
期刊最新文献
Exploring the Perceptions of Families and Nurses After Signing a Do-Not-Resuscitate Order for Patients in Respiratory Care Wards Differences in Timely Goals of Care Discussions in Nursing Homes Among Black Residents A Way Forward for Comprehensive Cancer Caregiver Support Development of a Hospice Perceptions Instrument for Diverse Patients and Families: Establishing Content and Face Validity Antibiotics at End of Life: Where Are We Now and Where Are We Going? A Narrative Review
×
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