Purpose: The aim of this study is to develop and validate a scale for perioperative recovery with integrative medicine. Methods: The procedures for developing the scale included a review of both modern and ancient lit...Purpose: The aim of this study is to develop and validate a scale for perioperative recovery with integrative medicine. Methods: The procedures for developing the scale included a review of both modern and ancient literature, other perioperative scales or questionnaire references, an expert consultation, and interviews with patients and surgeons following standard procedures. Primary face and content validity were assessed through a small-scale patient survey of 50 patients. A final evaluation based on the patient survey was conducted among 354 patients (age range 16-75) from the same hospital. This included testing the perioperative recovery scale for integrative medicine (PRSIM) for scaling properties, reliability, validity and responsiveness. Results: The PRSIM, a 20-item scale, was modified from an initial version transcript which included 122 items. The 20 items in the PRSIM covered five domains: direct influence, indirect influence, activity, mental function and general health perceptions. Five factors extracted from an exploratory factor analysis demonstrated a desirable model fit. A confirmatory factor analysis further indicated that the PRSIM had a good fit with the same sample. A data analysis of the PRSIM with 349 patients showed that it had good internal consistency (α> 0.7), test-retest reliability (ICC > 0.4) and split half reliability (α= 0.66). Conclusions: The PRSIM can serve as a valuable instrument for assessing patient perioperative recovery in integrative medicine. It is acceptable for patients in the perioperative period undergoing treatment by either Chinese or integrative medicine, and has good psychometric properties. Registration number: ChiCTR-TRC-09000527.展开更多
文摘Purpose: The aim of this study is to develop and validate a scale for perioperative recovery with integrative medicine. Methods: The procedures for developing the scale included a review of both modern and ancient literature, other perioperative scales or questionnaire references, an expert consultation, and interviews with patients and surgeons following standard procedures. Primary face and content validity were assessed through a small-scale patient survey of 50 patients. A final evaluation based on the patient survey was conducted among 354 patients (age range 16-75) from the same hospital. This included testing the perioperative recovery scale for integrative medicine (PRSIM) for scaling properties, reliability, validity and responsiveness. Results: The PRSIM, a 20-item scale, was modified from an initial version transcript which included 122 items. The 20 items in the PRSIM covered five domains: direct influence, indirect influence, activity, mental function and general health perceptions. Five factors extracted from an exploratory factor analysis demonstrated a desirable model fit. A confirmatory factor analysis further indicated that the PRSIM had a good fit with the same sample. A data analysis of the PRSIM with 349 patients showed that it had good internal consistency (α> 0.7), test-retest reliability (ICC > 0.4) and split half reliability (α= 0.66). Conclusions: The PRSIM can serve as a valuable instrument for assessing patient perioperative recovery in integrative medicine. It is acceptable for patients in the perioperative period undergoing treatment by either Chinese or integrative medicine, and has good psychometric properties. Registration number: ChiCTR-TRC-09000527.
