ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2025
Development, Validity, and Reliability of Three Instruments to Assess Holistic Care from Different Perspectives.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Holistic care emphasizes an integrated approach addressing physical, psychological, social, and spiritual needs, yet validated assessment tools from diverse perspectives remain limited. Aim: To develop and validate three holistic care assessment tools: the Holistic Care Quality Assessment Scale - Patient (HCQAS-P), Family (HCQAS-F), and the Holistic Care Knowledge Assessment Scale (HCKAS) for professionals. Methods: A mixed-methods design included qualitative interviews and a cross-sectional survey at two Taiwanese hospitals. Psychometric analyses were conducted on responses from 1,017 participants: 321 patients, 298 family members, and 398 professionals. Results: Qualitative findings identified five core holistic care themes. A total of 1,017 participants completed the quantitative study, including patients (n = 321), family members (n = 298), and healthcare professionals (n = 398). HCQAS-P and HCQAS-F showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's α > 0.92); HCKAS revealed a four-factor structure (institutional, competence, effectiveness, cost). Holistic care quality positively correlated with shared decision-making (γ = 0.542) and good death perceptions (γ = 0.250), and negatively with demoralization (γ = -0.246) and distress (γ = -0.184). Providers scored lowest in spiritual and social care. Conclusion: The validated tools offer a comprehensive assessment framework for holistic care. Findings highlight the value of shared decision-making and the need to strengthen training in non-physical care aspects.
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.