An Update on the Self-care of Heart Failure Index
An Update on the Self-care of Heart Failure Index
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/jcn.0b013e3181b4baa0
复制
发表时间：
2009-11-01
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Carlson, Beverly
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Riegel, Barbara;Lee, Christopher S.;Carlson, Beverly
背景：心力衰竭自我护理指数（SCHFI）是一种自我护理的衡量标准，它被定义为一种自然的决策过程，包括选择维持生理稳定的行为（维持）和出现症状时的反应（管理）。自SCHFI发布以来的5年中，我们增加了项目，完善了维持量表的回答格式和SCHFI评分程序，并修改了我们对评分使用的建议。目的：本文的目的是向用户介绍这些更改。方法：从信度、项目难度、给药频率、学习效果、社会期望度、效度、自我照顾充分性判断、临床相关变化、可比性等8个方面对不同版本进行分析。结果：在自我护理维持量表中增加项目对系数a的影响不显著，说明该量表的结构比单个项目更有效。重复给药无学习效果。社会期望是最低的。更多的证据证明了SCHFI的有效性。70分或更高的分数可以作为判断自我照顾是否足够的分界点，尽管有证据表明，在更低的自我照顾水平上也会产生好处。量表得分的变化超过SD的一半被认为是临床相关的。由于是标准化的分数，用以前的版本得到的结果可以与后来的版本进行比较。结论：SCHFI v.6已准备好供研究者使用。通过以这种形式发表，我们将该工具置于公共领域；使用SCHFI无需获得许可。
Background: The Self-care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) is a measure of self-care defined as a naturalistic decision-making process involving the choice of behaviors that maintain physiological stability (maintenance) and the response to symptoms when they occur (management). In the 5 years since the SCHFI was published, we have added items, refined the response format of the maintenance scale and the SCHFI scoring procedure, and modified our advice about how to use the scores. Objective: The objective of this article was to update users on these changes. Methods: In this article, we address 8 specific questions about reliability, item difficulty, frequency of administration, learning effects, social desirability, validity, judgments of self-care adequacy, clinically relevant change, and comparability of the various versions. Results: The addition of items to the self-care maintenance scale did not significantly change the coefficient a, providing evidence that the structure of the instrument is more powerful than the individual items. No learning effect is associated with repeated administration. Social desirability is minimal. More evidence is provided of the validity of the SCHFI. A score of 70 or greater can be used as the cut-point to judge self-care adequacy, although evidence is provided that benefit occurs at even lower levels of self-care. A change in a scale score more than one-half of an SD is considered clinically relevant. Because of the standardized scores, results obtained with prior versions can be compared with those from later versions. Conclusion: The SCHFI v.6 is ready to be used by investigators. By publication in this format, we are putting the instrument in the public domain; permission is not required to use the SCHFI.