| Title |
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
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Palliative Care, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12904-017-0183-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mitsunori Miyashita, Maho Aoyama, Misato Nakahata, Yuji Yamada, Mutsumi Abe, Kazuhiro Yanagihara, Akemi Shirado, Mariko Shutoh, Yoshiaki Okamoto, Jun Hamano, Aoi Miyamoto, Saki Yoshida, Kazuki Sato, Kei Hirai, Tatsuya Morita |
| Abstract |
The 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. We 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. Of 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). These results suggest that CES2.0 eliminated misresponses associated with CES1.0 while maintaining good reliability and validity and greatly improving test-retest reliability. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 59 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Researcher | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 12% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 24% |
| Unknown | 10 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 37% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 22% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 7% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 15 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 March 2017.
All research outputs
#13,850,190
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#977
of 1,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#217,588
of 419,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#15
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,255 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 419,094 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.