ArticleAsia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing2022
Adaptation and validation of the Chinese version of palliative care difficulties scale.
Article in Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The Palliative Care Difficulties Scale (PCDS) is the most popular tool in developed countries for the assessment of difficulties perceived by clinical professionals in palliative care practice. This study aimed to culturally adapt the PCDS into a Chinese version and validate the psychometric properties of the adapted Chinese version of the PCDS. Methods: The study was carried out in two major phases: (1) translation and cultural adaption of the PCDS into a Chinese version according to the corresponding guidelines, and (2) evaluation of the psychometric properties of the adapted Chinese version of the PCDS by consulting experts and performing a cross-sectional survey among 284 nurses and physicians. Floor and ceiling effects were estimated by the percentage of participants obtaining the lowest or highest possible scores. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using the Cronbach's α coefficient. Test-retest reliability was evaluated by the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Content validity was evaluated by the content validity index (CVI). Construct validity was calculated by applying the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results: The PCDS was translated and culturally adapted into a Chinese version. Neither floor nor ceiling effects were observed. The scale-level Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.94 with each dimension ranging from 0.84 to 0.92. The scale-level ICC was 0.66 with each dimension ranging from 0.41 to 0.65. Both the item-level and scale-level CVIs were equal to 1. The CFA verified the five-factor structure of the original PCDS with factor loadings for each item ranging from 0.62 to 0.96. Conclusions: The Chinese version of the PCDS showed satisfactory psychometric properties. It is a valid and reliable tool for the assessment of difficulties perceived by clinical staff in palliative care practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.