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
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 misresp...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | BMC palliative care 2017-01, Vol.16 (1), p.8-8, Article 8 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 8 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 8 |
| container_title | BMC palliative care |
| container_volume | 16 |
| creator | 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 |
| description | 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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1186/s12904-017-0183-2 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5259912</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A480605539</galeid><sourcerecordid>A480605539</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c674t-308e6826250829927db2ee7908837d87cf497e45b88ac7d76e4ded679c2b88973</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptUstu1TAUjBCIlsIHsEGW2HSTi-04sc0CqbqUh1SJBQ-xs3ydk9aVEwc7idRf4-s44V5Ki1BkJZkzM8fHnqJ4zuiGMdW8yoxrKkrKJC5VlfxBccyE5GWjxPeHd76Piic5X1MkKlE_Lo64YkxoJo-Ln29hgRDHHoaJTFdAtjYBOV9smO3k40A-OxuAfIOU1z--oa-JJX1sfeehJcsBj92Kgs0zqruYyA4S2AUZne19uMFaj1AmUySwN4ff7fKUZjetKju0ZEzRQc6r3WhD8LiFBYizB1NnBwcJS5PH7T4tHnU2ZHh2eJ8UX9-df9l-KC8-vf-4PbsoXSPFVFZUQaN4w2uquNZctjsOIDVVqpKtkq4TWoKod0pZJ1vZgGihbaR2HCEtq5Pizd53nHc9tA5bJxvMmHxv042J1pv7lcFfmcu4mJrXWjOOBqcHgxR_zJAn0_vsIAQ7QJyzwatkDVWSV0h9-Q_1Os5pwPFWVqVrVlfsL-sS78b4oYvY162m5kwo2tC6rjSyNv9h4dNC710coPOI3xOwvcClmHOC7nZGRs0aOLMPnMEcmTVwZp3txd3DuVX8SVj1C5Ip0qk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1863951531</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><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</title><source>Springer Open Access</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>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</creator><creatorcontrib>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</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1472-684X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1472-684X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/s12904-017-0183-2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28114917</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BioMed Central Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Analysis ; Bereavement ; Cancer patients ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Family ; Family - psychology ; Female ; Grief ; Health aspects ; Hospice care ; Humans ; Male ; Medical care quality ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasms - therapy ; Palliative care ; Palliative Care - standards ; Personal Satisfaction ; Program Evaluation ; Quality of Health Care ; Reproducibility of Results ; Surveys and Questionnaires - standards ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>BMC palliative care, 2017-01, Vol.16 (1), p.8-8, Article 8</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2017 BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright BioMed Central 2017</rights><rights>The Author(s). 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c674t-308e6826250829927db2ee7908837d87cf497e45b88ac7d76e4ded679c2b88973</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c674t-308e6826250829927db2ee7908837d87cf497e45b88ac7d76e4ded679c2b88973</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5259912/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5259912/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,728,781,785,865,886,27926,27927,53793,53795</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28114917$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Miyashita, Mitsunori</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aoyama, Maho</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nakahata, Misato</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yamada, Yuji</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abe, Mutsumi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yanagihara, Kazuhiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shirado, Akemi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shutoh, Mariko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Okamoto, Yoshiaki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamano, Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miyamoto, Aoi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoshida, Saki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sato, Kazuki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hirai, Kei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morita, Tatsuya</creatorcontrib><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</title><title>BMC palliative care</title><addtitle>BMC Palliat Care</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Bereavement</subject><subject>Cancer patients</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Family</subject><subject>Family - psychology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Grief</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Hospice care</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical care quality</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>Palliative care</subject><subject>Palliative Care - standards</subject><subject>Personal Satisfaction</subject><subject>Program Evaluation</subject><subject>Quality of Health Care</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires - standards</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1472-684X</issn><issn>1472-684X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNptUstu1TAUjBCIlsIHsEGW2HSTi-04sc0CqbqUh1SJBQ-xs3ydk9aVEwc7idRf4-s44V5Ki1BkJZkzM8fHnqJ4zuiGMdW8yoxrKkrKJC5VlfxBccyE5GWjxPeHd76Piic5X1MkKlE_Lo64YkxoJo-Ln29hgRDHHoaJTFdAtjYBOV9smO3k40A-OxuAfIOU1z--oa-JJX1sfeehJcsBj92Kgs0zqruYyA4S2AUZne19uMFaj1AmUySwN4ff7fKUZjetKju0ZEzRQc6r3WhD8LiFBYizB1NnBwcJS5PH7T4tHnU2ZHh2eJ8UX9-df9l-KC8-vf-4PbsoXSPFVFZUQaN4w2uquNZctjsOIDVVqpKtkq4TWoKod0pZJ1vZgGihbaR2HCEtq5Pizd53nHc9tA5bJxvMmHxv042J1pv7lcFfmcu4mJrXWjOOBqcHgxR_zJAn0_vsIAQ7QJyzwatkDVWSV0h9-Q_1Os5pwPFWVqVrVlfsL-sS78b4oYvY162m5kwo2tC6rjSyNv9h4dNC710coPOI3xOwvcClmHOC7nZGRs0aOLMPnMEcmTVwZp3txd3DuVX8SVj1C5Ip0qk</recordid><startdate>20170123</startdate><enddate>20170123</enddate><creator>Miyashita, Mitsunori</creator><creator>Aoyama, Maho</creator><creator>Nakahata, Misato</creator><creator>Yamada, Yuji</creator><creator>Abe, Mutsumi</creator><creator>Yanagihara, Kazuhiro</creator><creator>Shirado, Akemi</creator><creator>Shutoh, Mariko</creator><creator>Okamoto, Yoshiaki</creator><creator>Hamano, Jun</creator><creator>Miyamoto, Aoi</creator><creator>Yoshida, Saki</creator><creator>Sato, Kazuki</creator><creator>Hirai, Kei</creator><creator>Morita, Tatsuya</creator><general>BioMed Central Ltd</general><general>BioMed Central</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170123</creationdate><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</title><author>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</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c674t-308e6826250829927db2ee7908837d87cf497e45b88ac7d76e4ded679c2b88973</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Bereavement</topic><topic>Cancer patients</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Family</topic><topic>Family - psychology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Grief</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Hospice care</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical care quality</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>Palliative care</topic><topic>Palliative Care - standards</topic><topic>Personal Satisfaction</topic><topic>Program Evaluation</topic><topic>Quality of Health Care</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires - standards</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Miyashita, Mitsunori</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aoyama, Maho</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nakahata, Misato</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yamada, Yuji</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abe, Mutsumi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yanagihara, Kazuhiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shirado, Akemi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shutoh, Mariko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Okamoto, Yoshiaki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamano, Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miyamoto, Aoi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoshida, Saki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sato, Kazuki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hirai, Kei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morita, Tatsuya</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health and Medical</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>BMC palliative care</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Miyashita, Mitsunori</au><au>Aoyama, Maho</au><au>Nakahata, Misato</au><au>Yamada, Yuji</au><au>Abe, Mutsumi</au><au>Yanagihara, Kazuhiro</au><au>Shirado, Akemi</au><au>Shutoh, Mariko</au><au>Okamoto, Yoshiaki</au><au>Hamano, Jun</au><au>Miyamoto, Aoi</au><au>Yoshida, Saki</au><au>Sato, Kazuki</au><au>Hirai, Kei</au><au>Morita, Tatsuya</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>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</atitle><jtitle>BMC palliative care</jtitle><addtitle>BMC Palliat Care</addtitle><date>2017-01-23</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>8</spage><epage>8</epage><pages>8-8</pages><artnum>8</artnum><issn>1472-684X</issn><eissn>1472-684X</eissn><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.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BioMed Central Ltd</pub><pmid>28114917</pmid><doi>10.1186/s12904-017-0183-2</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1472-684X |
| ispartof | BMC palliative care, 2017-01, Vol.16 (1), p.8-8, Article 8 |
| issn | 1472-684X 1472-684X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5259912 |
| source | Springer Open Access; MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; SpringerNature Journals; PubMed Central Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central |
| subjects | Adult Aged Analysis Bereavement Cancer patients Cross-Sectional Studies Family Family - psychology Female Grief Health aspects Hospice care Humans Male Medical care quality Middle Aged Neoplasms - therapy Palliative care Palliative Care - standards Personal Satisfaction Program Evaluation Quality of Health Care Reproducibility of Results Surveys and Questionnaires - standards Young Adult |
| 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 |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-18T00%3A48%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Development%20the%20Care%20Evaluation%20Scale%20Version%202.0:%20a%20modified%20version%20of%20a%20measure%20for%20bereaved%20family%20members%20to%20evaluate%20the%20structure%20and%20process%20of%20palliative%20care%20for%20cancer%20patient&rft.jtitle=BMC%20palliative%20care&rft.au=Miyashita,%20Mitsunori&rft.date=2017-01-23&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=8&rft.epage=8&rft.pages=8-8&rft.artnum=8&rft.issn=1472-684X&rft.eissn=1472-684X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/s12904-017-0183-2&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA480605539%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1863951531&rft_id=info:pmid/28114917&rft_galeid=A480605539&rfr_iscdi=true |