Journal Article Development the Care Evaluation Scale Version 2.0: a modified version of a measure for bereaved family members to evaluate the structure and process of palliative care for cancer patient

Miyashita, Mitsunori  ,  Aoyama, Maho  ,  Nakahata, Misato  ,  Yamada, Yuji  ,  Abe, Mutsumi  ,  Yanagihara, Kazuhiro  ,  Shirado, Akemi  ,  Shutoh, Mariko  ,  Okamoto, Yoshiaki  ,  Hamano, Jun  ,  Miyamoto, Aoi  ,  Yoshida, Saki  ,  Sato, Kazuki  ,  Hirai, Kei  ,  Morita, Tatsuya

16 ( 1 ) 2017-01 , Bio Med Central ltd
BackgroundThe Care Evaluation Scale (CES1.0) was designed to allow bereaved family members to evaluate the structure and process of care, but has been associated with a high frequency of misresponses. The objective of this study was to develop a modified version of CES1.0 (CES2.0) that would eliminate misresponses while maintaining good reliability and validity.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire survey by mail in October 2013. The participants were bereaved family members of patients who died from cancer in seven institutions in Japan. All family members were asked to complete CES2.0, the short form CES1.0, items on overall care satisfaction, the Family Satisfaction with Advanced Cancer Care (FAMCARE) Scale, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and the Brief Grief Questionnaire (BGQ). To examine test-retest reliability, all participants were asked to complete a second CES2.0.ResultsOf 596 questionnaires sent, 461 (77%) were returned and 393 (66%) were analyzed. In the short form CES1.0, 17.1% of the responses were identified as misresponses. No misresponses were found in CES2.0. We identified 10 CES2.0 subscales similar to those in CES1.0 using exploratory factor analysis. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.96, and the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.83. Correlations were found between CES2.0 and overall satisfaction (r = 0.83) and FAMCARE (r = 0.58). In addition, total CES2.0 scores were negatively correlated with the PHQ-9 (r = −0.22) and BGQ (r = −0.10).ConclusionThese results suggest that CES2.0 eliminated misresponses associated with CES1.0 while maintaining good reliability and validity and greatly improving test-retest reliability.

Number of accesses :  

Other information