以质量求发展，以服务铸品牌

护理学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (4): 1-5.doi: 10.16460/j.issn1008-9969.2023.04.001

• 研究生园地 •    下一篇

女性乳腺癌患者淋巴水肿风险感知评估问卷的编制及信效度检验

马珠月1, 姚珊珊2a, 史妍妍1, 陆宁宁1, 邾萍2b, 程芳1   

  1. 1.南京医科大学 护理学院,江苏 南京 211100;
    2.江苏省肿瘤医院 江苏省肿瘤防治研究所 南京医科大学附属肿瘤医院a.乳腺外科;b.护理部,江苏 南京 210009
  • 收稿日期:2022-08-15 出版日期:2023-02-25 发布日期:2023-03-14
  • 通讯作者: 程芳（1979-）,女,安徽芜湖人,硕士,讲师,硕士研究生导师。E-mail: chfnancy@163.com
  • 作者简介:马珠月（1997-）,女,江苏扬州人,汉族,本科学历,硕士研究生在读。
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金（71904090）; 江苏高校优势学科建设工程项目“护理学”（苏政办发[2018]87号）; “十三五”江苏省重点学科项目“护理学”（苏教研[2016]9号）

Development of risk perception questionnaire in women with breast-cancer-related lymphedema and its reliability and validity

MA Zhu-yue1, YAO Shan-shan2a, SHI Yan-yan1, LU Ning-ning1, ZHU Ping2b, CHENG Fang1   

  1. 1. School of Nursing, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 211100,China;
    2 a. Dept. of Breast Surgery; b. Dept. of Nursing Administration, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital, Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, the Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210009,China
  • Received:2022-08-15 Online:2023-02-25 Published:2023-03-14

PDF (PC)

759

赞

摘要： 目的 编制女性乳腺癌患者淋巴水肿风险感知评估问卷并检验其信效度。方法 基于双过程模型,通过文献回顾、半结构式访谈、专家函询法和预调查形成问卷初稿,并对377例乳腺癌患者进行调查,检验其信效度。结果 形成的女性乳腺癌患者淋巴水肿风险感知问卷共包括3个维度22个条目。全体一致性内容效度指数（S-CVI/UA）为0.864,各条目内容效度指数（I-CVI）为0.830~1.000。探索性因子分析提取了3个公因子,累积方差贡献率58.511%。测评问卷总的Cronbachs α 系数为0.745,折半信度为0.885;各维度的Cronbachs α 系数为0.870~0.893,折半信度为0.870~0.880。验证性因子分析结果显示,模型适配良好。结论 女性乳腺癌患者淋巴水肿风险感知评估问卷具有良好的信效度,可用于评估乳腺癌女性患者淋巴水肿的风险感知水平。

关键词: 乳腺癌, 淋巴水肿, 风险感知, 问卷编制, 信度, 效度

Abstract: Objective To develop a risk perception questionnaire in women with breast-cancer-related lymphedema, and to test its reliability and validity. Methods With dual process model, through literature review, semi-structured interviews, and expert correspondence, the risk perception questionnaire for women with breast-cancer-related lymphedema was preliminarily developed, and the questionnaire was adjusted and revised through pre-survey. A total of 377 breast cancer patients were selected to test the reliability and validity. Results The risk perception questionnaire for women with breast-cancer-related lymphedema consisted of 22 items in 3 dimensions. The overall consistency content validity index (S-CVI/UA) was 0.864, and content validity index (I-CVI) for each entry ranged from 0.830 to 1.000. Exploratory factor analysis identified 3 principal factors, which accumulatively explained of 58.511% of total variance. Cronbach α coefficient of the questionnaire was 0.745 and split-half reliability of the questionnaire was 0.885;Cronbach α coefficient of 3 dimensions ranged from 0.870 to 0.893 and split-half reliability of 3 dimensions from 0.870 to 0.880. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated good model fit. Conclusion Risk perception questionnaire in women with breast-cancer-related lymphedema has good reliability and can be used to assess their perceived risk level of lymphedema.

Key words: breast cancer, lymphedema, risk perception, questionnaire, reliability, validity

中图分类号: 

  • R47
[1] 杨璇, 张海林, 孙文雯. 乳腺癌相关淋巴水肿发病风险的研究进展[J]. 护理学杂志, 2018, 33(23):98-101.DOI:10.3870/j.issn.1001-4152.2018.23.98.
[2] Aycock DM, Clark PC, Araya S.Measurement and outcomes of the perceived risk of stroke: a review[J]. West J Nurs Res,2019,41(1):134-154.DOI:10.1177/0193945917747856.
[3] Li M, Huang W, Zhang X, et al.Illness perceptions and adherence to breast cancer-related lymphedema risk management behaviours among breast cancer survivors[J]. Eur J Oncol Nurs,2022,58:102144.DOI:10.1016/j.ejon.2022.102144.
[4] Cipolletta S, Andreghetti GR, Mioni G.Risk perception towards COVID-19: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis[J]. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2022, 19(8): 4649.DOI:10.3390/ijerph19084649.
[5] 黄蕾, 何若莹, 毕军. 健康风险感知研究进展[J]. 环境卫生学杂志, 2018, 8(3):226-231.DOI:10.13421/j.cnki.hjwsxzz.2018.03.011.
[6] Maffei S, Meloni A, Deidda M, et al.Cardiovascular risk perception and knowledge among italian women: lessons from IGENDA protocol[J]. J Clin Med , 2022, 11(6): 1695.DOI:10.3390/jcm11061695.
[7] Janssen E, Van Osch L, De Vries H, et al.Measuring risk perceptions of skin cancer: reliability and validity of different operationalizations[J]. Br J Health Psychol, 2011, 16(Pt 1): 92-112.DOI: 10.1348/135910710X514120.
[8] Lifshitz R, Nimrod G, Bachner Y G.Measuring risk perception in later life: the perceived risk scale[J]. J Am Psychiatr Nurses Assoc,2016,22(6):469-474.DOI:10.1177/1078390316659910.
[9] NLN Medical Advisory Committee. Lymphedema risk reduction praction practices[EB/OL].(2012-05-01)[2015--07-15].http://www.lymphnet.org.
[10] Martinelli M, Veltri G A.Do cognitive styles affect vaccine hesitancy? A dual-process cognitive framework for vaccine hesitancy and the role of risk perceptions[J]. Soc Sci Med, 2021, 289: 114403.DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114403.
[11] 王琦, 李领侠, 和巾杰, 等. 医护人员低血糖症知信行问卷的编制及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2022, 28(9):9-13.DOI:10.16460/j.issn1008-9969.2021.09.009.
[12] 刘砚燕. 患者报告结局测量信息系统:儿童报告版和父母报告版癌症相关简表的测量学研究[D]. 上海:第二军医大学, 2016.
[13] 郑卫军,何凡.现况调查的样本量计算方法[J].预防医学,2020,32(6):647-648. DOI:10.19485/j.cnki.issn2096-5087.2020.06.028
[14] Tao L, Hu X, Chen H, et al.Factors influencing the burden on spousal caregivers of breast cancer survivors[J]. Support Care Cancer, 2022, 16.DOI:10.1007/s00520-022-07130-2.
[15] 徐立敏,钱志刚. 临床带教教师隐性知识共享量表的编制及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2022,29(15): 24-27.DOI:10.16460/j.issn1008-9969.2022.15.024
[16] 吴明隆. 问卷统计分析实务[M].重庆大学出版社,2010:158-298.
[17] Kaufman A R, Twesten J E, Suls J, et al.Measuring cigarette smoking risk perceptions[J]. Nicotine Tob Res, 2020, 22(11): 1937-1945.DOI:10.1093/ntr/ntz213.
[18] 刘恒, 樊英怡, 裴晓华. 裴晓华分期防治乳腺癌相关淋巴水肿经验[J]. 北京中医药, 2020, 39(6):572-574.DOI:10.16025/j.1674-1307.2020.06.013.
[19] Cella D, Hughens C, Peterman A, et al. A brief assessment of concerns associated with genetic testing for cancer: the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire[J]. Health psychol, 2002, 21(6): 564-572.PMID: 12433008.
[20] Stolt M, Kottorp A, Suhonen R.The use and quality of reporting of rasch analysis in nursing research: A methodological scoping review[J]. Int J Nurs Stud, 2022, 132: 104244.DOI:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2022.104244.
[1] 张玺, 黄静, 汪天华, 李燕, 曹沅, 李明惠, 余立平. 发育障碍儿童养育心理韧性量表的汉化及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2025, 32(4): 6-11.
[2] 华晶, 张青月, 王燕, 程畅, 张秀丽, 张爱爱. 问题提示清单在乳腺癌手术患者中的应用研究[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(8): 18-22.
[3] 丁心舒, 孙乐菲, 高伟, 鲁琦, 闫畅, 刘德山. 矛盾年龄歧视量表在社区老年人中的信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(7): 12-16.
[4] 袁华君, 段功香, 陈路桥, 王慧清. 癌症终末期患者救护意愿量表的编制及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(6): 73-78.
[5] 谭如意, 龙秀红, 马红利, 陈兰. 腰椎间盘突出症患者中医康复健康信息获取行为量表的编制及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(5): 67-72.
[6] 张钰琳, 朱向伟, 洪慧芳, 卢根娣. 重大传染病突发事件中护士伦理困境量表的研制及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(4): 1-6.
[7] 李佳萍, 朱云霞, 朱宇. 乳腺癌化疗患者症状群的范围综述[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(4): 60-64.
[8] 宋彩妮, 郑尧, 宋英, 刘丽华. 癌症照顾者信息隐瞒量表的汉化及在肺癌患者照顾者中的信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(3): 17-20.
[9] 赵国瑞, 刘高明, 张凤, 周颖. 宫颈癌患者术后下肢淋巴水肿风险预测模型的构建及验证[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(24): 7-12.
[10] 姚婉晴, 杨立状, 陈旦旦, 张晚秋, 卢薇, 管翠红, 李海. 不同非药物干预措施改善乳腺癌患者疲乏效果的网状Meta分析[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(24): 37-43.
[11] 王婷婷, 沈文彬, 李温荣, 陈滢滢, 时佳静, 张睿, 魏亚培. 淋巴康复护理工作室的构建与运行效果评价[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(23): 45-48.
[12] 李苗, 李红梅, 张俊, 李盼盼, 张宇彤, 王茜, 李沁瑶. 乳腺癌化疗患者自我倡权潜在类别及影响因素分析[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(20): 19-23.
[13] 张国春, 李海云, 褚梁梁, 程雪, 王君芝. 产科护士围产期姑息照护知信行量表的编制及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(2): 6-11.
[14] 罗铎麟, 杨春清, 高萍, 胡清文, 徐小群. 2型糖尿病心理痛苦量表的汉化及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(19): 24-30.
[15] 简称苹, 张汉卿, 王丽英, 田海艳, 彭向东, 张亚楠, 蔡德芳. 本科护生自我调节学习策略量表的汉化及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(18): 12-15.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
No Suggested Reading articles found!