当社グループは 3,000 以上の世界的なカンファレンスシリーズ 米国、ヨーロッパ、世界中で毎年イベントが開催されます。 1,000 のより科学的な学会からの支援を受けたアジア および 700 以上の オープン アクセスを発行ジャーナルには 50,000 人以上の著名人が掲載されており、科学者が編集委員として名高い

オープンアクセスジャーナルはより多くの読者と引用を獲得
700 ジャーナル 15,000,000 人の読者 各ジャーナルは 25,000 人以上の読者を獲得

インデックス付き
  • 索引コペルニクス
  • Google スカラー
  • Jゲートを開く
  • Genamics JournalSeek
  • 中国国家知識基盤 (CNKI)
  • 電子ジャーナルライブラリ
  • レフシーク
  • ハムダード大学
  • エブスコ アリゾナ州
  • OCLC-WorldCat
  • 仮想生物学図書館 (vifabio)
  • パブロン
  • ジュネーブ医学教育研究財団
  • ユーロパブ
  • ICMJE
このページをシェアする

抽象的な

The Development and Validation of a Questionnaire to Audit Advance Care Planning

Daren K. Heyland*, Deb Pichora, Peter Dodek, Francois Lamontagne, John J. You, Doris Barwich, Carolyn Tayler, Pat Porterfield, Jessica Simon and Bert Enns

Background: Advance Care Planning (ACP) is established as a standard of care in many settings. However, no validated tool exists to measure participants’ perspectives on ACP. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a questionnaire to assess ACP from the perspectives of patients and their family members, and to pilot the use of this questionnaire in both English and French.
Methods: To develop the ACP-specific questionnaire, items were generated from focus groups with health care professionals and face-to-face interviews withhospitalized patients and their families. The items from this novel questionnaire were combined with other validated evaluation instruments and then piloted in English-speaking hospitalized patients who had advanced, life-limiting illnesses and a version for their family members. Revisions were made based on that experience and feedback from content experts and this questionnaire was then piloted in another sample of French-speaking respondents.
Results: The novel questionnaire was divided into 2 parts, the first part focusing on ACP activities before admission to hospital (6 questions) and the second part relating to ‘goals of care’ discussions that occur during hospitalization (8 questions). For the English pilot study, the average duration of the entire interview (including consent, baseline demographics and other questionnaires) was 53.1 mins (range 35-80 mins) for patients and 60.8 mins (range 33-125 mins) for family members. English-speaking patients rated the burden of participating in the interview as a mean of 2.8 (Standard Deviation [SD] 1.9, 1=no burden, 10=extreme burden) and family members as 1.9 (SD 1.9). For the French pilot study, the results were similar.
Conclusions: This is the first ACP questionnaire to be developed that has face and content validity. Despite a relatively lengthy interview process, the ACP audit process seems feasible and is not associated with undue burden.