Sinicization, cross-cultural adjustment and reliability and validity test of the Burnt Hand Outcome Tool
-
摘要:
目的 将手部烧伤结局评估工具（BHOT）引入中国，对其进行汉化、跨文化调试和信效度检验，为手部烧伤患者治疗效果的评估和医疗决策的制订提供参考依据。 方法 采用横断面调查研究方法。征得原作者授权后采用Brislin翻译模式对BHOT进行直译、合成、回译和专家审核，形成中文版BHOT（C-BHOT）2。采用目的抽样法邀请10名从事烧伤救治工作的专家进行跨文化调试，形成C-BHOT 3。采用偶然抽样法，选择2020年1—3月在宁夏医科大学总医院治疗的21例符合入选标准的手部烧伤患者行预测试，完善后形成最终版C-BHOT 4。采用偶然抽样多地点跨区调查法于2020年5月—2021年3月，选择宁夏医科大学总医院、空军军医大学第一附属医院、陆军军医大学（第三军医大学）第一附属医院和南昌大学第一附属医院的符合入选标准的住院患者。采用一般资料调查表和C-BHOT 4进行调查，采用临界比法和相关系数法进行项目分析，采用克龙巴赫α系数检验内部一致性，采用重测信度判断稳定性，采用内容效度指数分析内容效度，采用探索性因子分析进行结构效度检验。对数据行独立样本t检验、Pearson相关分析。 结果 经汉化、跨文化调试、预测试后形成共20个条目的C-BHOT 4，所有条目调整为正向计分，在原工具的基础上修改7处。正式调查共发放问卷353份，回收有效问卷344份，有效回收率97.45%。344例患者中男性（297例）明显多于女性（47例），年龄为23~57岁。项目分析中各条目的临界比为5.48~12.59（P<0.05），高分组和低分组每个条目得分比较差异明显（t=-10.72~-2.84，P<0.05或P<0.01），各条目得分间、各条目得分与工具总分间均呈明显正相关（r=0.68~0.71、0.47~0.63，P<0.05或P<0.01）。信度检验中，整个工具的克龙巴赫α系数为0.837，重测信度为0.702~0.793。效度检验中，整个工具的内容效度指数为0.923，探索性因子分析共提取出3个公因子，累计方差贡献率为76.162%，验证性因子分析中的比较拟合指数为0.924。 结论 引进的BHOT经汉化、跨文化调试、预测试和信效度检验后，验证出C-BHOT 4在中国手部烧伤患者结局评估中具有良好的信效度，可作为一种有效的测评工具进行应用。 Abstract:Objective To introduce the Burnt Hand Outcome Tool (BHOT) into China to conduct sinicization, cross-cultural debugging, and test the reliability and validity, thus provide a reference for the evaluation of treatment effect and making of medical decisions of hand burn patients. Methods The cross-sectional research was conducted. After obtaining the authorization of the original author, the Brislin translation mode was used to literally translate, synthesize, back-translate, and be checked by experts to form the Chinese version of BHOT (C-BHOT) 2. Ten experts in the field of burn rescue and treatment were invited by purpose sampling method to conduct cross-cultural debugging to form C-BHOT 3. A total of 21 hand burn patients who were treated in General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University from January to March 2020 and conformed to the inclusion criteria were selected by accidental sampling method for pre-testing. Then the final version of C-BHOT 4 was formed. Hospitalized patients who met the selection criteria were recruited using accidental sampling, multi-site and cross-regional survey method from May 2020 to March 2021 in General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, the First Affiliated Hospital of Air Force Medical University, the First Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University (the Third Military Medical University), and the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University. The survey was performed with the general information questionnaire and C-BHOT 4. Critical ratio method and correlation coefficient method were used for item analysis, Cronbach's α coefficient test tool was used to test internal consistency, test-retest reliability was used to judge the stability of the tool, content validity index analysis tool was used to analyze the content validity, and exploratory factor analysis was used to test the validity of the structure. Data were statistically analyzed with independent sample t test or Pearson correlation analysis. Results After the sinicization, cross-cultural debugging, and pre-testing, C-BHOT 4 was formed with a total of 20 items. All items were adjusted to positive scoring, and 7 modifications were made on the basis of the original tool. A total of 353 questionnaires were issued in the formal survey, and 344 valid questionnaires were returned, with an effective response rate of 97.45%. In the 344 patients, there were more male patients (297 patients) than female patients (47 patients), with ages of 23 to 57 years. The critical ratios of each item in the item analysis ranged from 5.48 to 12.59 (P<0.05). There were statistically significant differences in the scores between patients in high-score group and low-score group (t=-10.72--2.84, P<0.05 or P<0.01). There was significant positive relationship among the scores of each two items and between scores of each item and the overall tool score (r=0.68-0.71, 0.47-0.63, P<0.05 or P<0.01). In reliability test, the Cronbach's α coefficient of the whole tool was 0.837, and the test-retest reliability was 0.702-0.793. In validity test, the content validity index of whole tool was 0.923. The exploratory factor analysis extracted 3 common factors, and the cumulative variance contribution rate was 76.162%. The comparative fit index in the confirmatory factor analysis was 0.924. Conclusions After the BHOT tool being sinicized, cross-culturally debugged, pre-tested, and tested for reliability and validity, it was verified that C-BHOT 4 has good reliability and validity in assessing the outcome of Chinese hand burn patients, and therefore can be used as an effective tool for the evaluation. -
Key words:
- Hand /
- Burns /
- Patient-reported outcome /
- Scale sinicization /
- Reliability /
- Validity
-
所有作者均声明不存在利益冲突
-
参考文献
(32) [1] 王佳佳,谢洋,李建生.临床结局测评工具修订的现状及流程思考:以慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者报告结局量表修订为例[J].中国全科医学,2020,23(29):3644-3648.DOI: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2020.00.360.DOI:10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2020.00.360. [2] 李立群,王建宁,詹梦梅,等.快速反应系统对住院患者临床结局影响的系统评价再评价[J].中国护理管理,2019,19(6):850-856.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-1756.2019.06.010. [3] 皋文君,袁长蓉.患者自我报告结局测量信息系统在国外的应用进展[J].中华护理杂志,2018,53(11):1401-1405.DOI: 10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2018.11.026. [4] ZiolkowskiNI, PusicAL, FishJS, et al. Psychometric findings for the SCAR-Q patient-reported outcome measure based on 731 children and adults with surgical, traumatic, and burn scars from four countries[J]. Plast Reconstr Surg,2020,146(3):331e-338e. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000007078. [5] 杨苏,黄丽华.患者自我报告结局在慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者中的应用进展[J].中华护理杂志, 2020,55(5):716-720. DOI: 10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2020.05.015. [6] BroderickJE, MayM, SchwartzJE, et al. Patient reported outcomes can improve performance status assessment: a pilot study[J]. J Patient Rep Outcomes,2019,3(1):41. DOI: 10.1186/s41687-019-0136-z. [7] 王秀蓓,王海芳,钮美娥,等. 癌症患者报告结局的研究进展[J].中国护理管理,2018, 18(3): 423-427. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-1756.2018.03.031. [8] RuseckaiteR, MaharajAD, KrysinskaK, et al. Developing a preliminary conceptual framework for guidelines on inclusion of patient reported-outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical quality registries[J]. Patient Relat Outcome Meas,2019,10:355-372.DOI: 10.2147/PROM.S229569. [9] KnightA, WasiakJ, SalwayJ, et al. Factors predicting health status and recovery of hand function after hand burns in the second year after hospital discharge[J]. Burns, 2017,43(1):100-106. DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2016.07.025. [10] LegemateCM, SpronkI, MokkinkLB, et al. Evaluation of measurement properties of health-related quality of life instruments for burns: a systematic review[J]. J Trauma Acute Care Surg,2020,88(4):555-571.DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000002584. [11] GriffithsC, Armstrong-JamesL, WhiteP, et al. A systematic review of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in child and adolescent burn research[J]. Burns,2015,41(2):212-224. DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2014.07.018. [12] GriffithsC. Guest E, Pickles T,et al. The development and validation of the CARe Burn Scale-Adult Form: a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) to assess quality of life for adults living with a burn injury[J].J Burn Care Res,2019,40(3):312-326.DOI: 10.1093/jbcr/irz021. [13] Mc KittrickA,GustafssonL,MarshallK.A systematic review to investigate outcome tools currently in use for those with hand burns, and mapping psychometric properties of outcome measures[J].Burns,2021,47(2):295-314.DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2020.07.009. [14] TangD, Li-TsangCWP, AuRKC, et al. Predictors of functional independence, quality of life, and return to work in patients with burn injuries in mainland China[J/OL].Burns Trauma,2016,4:32[2020-12-04].https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27826591/. DOI: 10.1186/s41038-016-0058-4. [15] BacheSE, Fitzgerald O'ConnorE, DrakePJH, et al. Development and validation of the Burnt Hand Outcome Tool (BHOT): a patient-led questionnaire for adults with hand burns[J]. Burns, 2018, 44(8):2087-2098.DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2018.07.014. [16] JonesPS, LeeJW, PhillipsLR, et al. An adaptation of Brislin's translation model for cross-cultural research[J]. Nurs Res,2001,50(5):300-304. DOI: 10.1097/00006199-200109000-00008. [17] 吴明隆.问卷统计分析实务——SPSS操作与应用[M].重庆:重庆大学出版社,2010:207. [18] 林妙然,姜小鹰,胡荣.急性白血病患者报告临床结局量表的编制及信效度检验[J].中华护理杂志, 2019,54(3):350-355. DOI: 10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2019.03.005. [19] 沈璐,李惠萍,翁慧,等.“以人为本”围术期护理量表的汉化及信效度检验[J].护理研究, 2021,35(11):1904-1908. DOI: 10.12102/j.issn.1009-6493.2021.11.005. [20] 张文芳,郝艳华,田甜.心力衰竭患者口渴困扰量表的汉化及信效度研究[J].中华护理杂志, 2019,54(6):957-960. DOI: 10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2019.06.032. [21] 李莹,刘婷,苗秀欣,等.痛风影响量表的汉化与信度效度检验[J].中国护理管理,2019,19(10):1472-1477. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-1756.2019.10.009. [22] 苏中华,李四劝,成义仁.量表评估的内部一致性与克朗巴赫α系数的应用评价[J].临床心身疾病杂志,2009,15(1):85-86. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-187X.2009.01.047.0085-02. [23] 陈静,谢红,张贤,等.医护合作量表的汉化及信效度检验[J].中华护理杂志, 2014, 49(2): 236-240. DOI: 10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2014.02.028. [24] 张鸿儒,刘宇,余一彤,等.疾病多维度反刍思维量表的汉化及信效度评价[J].护理研究,2020,34(18): 3214-3219. DOI: 10.12102/j.issn.1009-6493.2020.18.006. [25] 邵静, 叶志弘, 汤磊雯.护理工作环境量表的研制及信效度研究[J].中华护理杂志,2016,51(2):142-147. DOI: 10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2016.02.002. [26] 潘月帅,魏丽丽,宋蕾,等.医院磁性要素量表的汉化及信效度检验[J].中华护理杂志,2019,54(1):145-150. DOI: 10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2019.01.031. [27] 田孟真,周萍,陈鹏,等.中文版输尿管支架相关症状调查问卷的汉化及信效度分析[J].中华现代护理杂志, 2020,26(16):2130-2137. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115682-20191105-04008. [28] MathersJ, MoiemenN, BamfordA, et al. Ensuring that the outcome domains proposed for use in burns research are relevant to adult burn patients: a systematic review of qualitative research evidence[J/OL].Burns Trauma,2020,8:tkaa030[2021-09-18]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33163540/. DOI: 10.1093/burnst/tkaa030. [29] FinlayV, BurrowsS, BurmazM, et al. Increased burn healing time is associated with higher Vancouver Scar Scale score[J]. Scars Burn Heal, 2017,3:2059513117696324. DOI: 10.1177/2059513117696324. [30] SchneiderJC, QuHD, LowryJ, et al. Efficacy of inpatient burn rehabilitation: a prospective pilot study examining range of motion, hand function and balance[J]. Burns,2012,38(2):164-171. DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2011.11.002. [31] de KlerkS, BuchananH, Jerosch-HeroldC, et al. The validity and clinical utility of the Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand questionnaire for hand injuries in developing country contexts: a systematic review[J]. J Hand Ther,2018,31(1):80-90.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.jht.2017.10.004. [32] RobillardAS, GaneC, RoyeaC, et al. Cross-cultural translation, adaptation and validation of the Burnt Hand Outcome Tool (BHOT) from English to French Canadian[J]. Burns,2021,47(6): 1429-1441. DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2020.12.019. -
表1 344例手部烧伤患者的一般资料
项目与分类 例数 构成比（%） 性别 男 297 86.34 女 47 13.66 年龄（岁） 18~45 185 53.78 46~60 159 46.22 婚姻状况 已婚 238 69.19 未婚 35 10.17 离异 49 14.24 丧偶 22 6.40 文化程度 初中 129 37.50 高中 150 43.60 大专 48 13.95 本科及以上 17 4.94 烧伤严重程度 轻度 95 27.62 中度 121 35.17 重度 67 19.48 特重度 61 17.73 烧伤深度 深Ⅱ度 158 45.93 Ⅲ度 186 54.07 烧伤原因 火焰 54 15.70 热液 103 29.94 热固体 77 22.38 化学 62 18.02 电击 48 13.95 并发症 有 176 51.16 无 168 48.84 植皮 是 188 54.65 否 156 45.35 
下载: 导出CSV
表2 2组手部烧伤患者采用中文版手部烧伤结局评估工具评估后各条目得分比较（分，
组别 例数 条目1 条目2 条目3 条目4 条目5 条目6 条目7 条目8 条目9 条目10 高分组 92 5.3±1.5 5.9±1.3 5.1±0.6 5.3±1.3 4.4±1.8 6.4±1.7 5.2+1.4 5.8±1.6 5.9±1.1 6.3±1.6 低分组 92 2.4±1.5 2.2±0.9 2.6±0.5 2.6±0.5 3.4±1.3 3.0±1.0 2.8±1.3 2.8±0.8 3.0±1.4 2.8±1.6 临界比 8.45 6.48 5.73 8.94 7.37 12.30 8.48 9.36 5.48 12.59 t值 -2.85 -3.62 -2.84 -10.72 -6.26 -5.37 -4.82 -5.26 -4.92 -6.05 P值 <0.05 <0.05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 注：条目1、2、3、4、5、6、7、8、9、10、11、12、13、14、15、16、17、18、19、20分别为完成较简单的活动（如玩扑克牌或玩橡皮泥）；完成需要一些力量的活动（如使用锤子或拍手鼓）；患手力量如何；患手完成精细动作（如捡豆子或套杯子）时的情况如何；患手进行一般活动（如吃饭、穿衣、洗漱）时的情况如何；拧开盖紧的杯子盖；拿购物袋或箱子；系衣服上的扣子；使用筷子吃饭；用笔写字；我对手的外观不满意；手部瘢痕处皮肤与正常皮肤相比，颜色如何；手部瘢痕处组织与正常组织相比，僵硬度如何；手部疼痛程度如何；手部瘙痒程度如何；手部烧伤对您的正常生活有怎样的影响；手部烧伤对您与家人和朋友之间的社交活动有怎样的影响；手部烧伤使我不自信；由于手部烧伤我感觉自己很没用；一想到手部烧伤我就很沮丧
下载: 导出CSV
表3 344例手部烧伤患者采用中文版手部烧伤结局评估工具评估的内容及各因子载荷量值矩阵
维度 条目 因子1的载荷量值 因子2的载荷量值 因子3的载荷量值 手部一般活动 1.完成较简单的活动（如玩扑克牌或橡皮泥） 0.795 0.153 0.051 2.完成需要一些力量的活动（如使用锤子或拍手鼓） 0.824 0.164 0.048 3.患手力量如何 0.879 0.037 0.135 4.患手完成精细动作（如捡豆子或套杯子）时的情况如何 0.820 0.233 0.072 5.患手进行一般活动（如吃饭、穿衣、洗漱）时的情况如何 0.754 0.059 0.029 手部特殊活动 6.拧开盖紧的杯子盖 0.838 0.138 0.078 7.拿购物袋或箱子 0.836 0.036 0.092 8.系衣服上的扣子 0.783 0.083 0.135 9.使用筷子吃饭 0.821 0.021 0.151 10.用笔写字 0.782 0.082 0.048 手部外观、瘢痕、 疼痛和感觉 11.我对手的外观不满意 0.203 0.831 0.115 12.手部瘢痕处皮肤与正常皮肤相比，颜色如何 0.257 0.775 0.191 13.手部瘢痕处组织与正常组织相比，僵硬度如何 0.137 0.636 0.092 14.手部疼痛程度如何 0.053 0.882 0.081 15.手部瘙痒程度如何 0.330 0.794 0.129 手部烧伤对生活、 社交和情绪的 影响 16.手部烧伤对您的正常生活有怎样的影响 0.105 0.036 0.763 17.手部烧伤对您与家人和朋友之间的社交活动有怎样的影响 0.177 0.055 0.826 18.手部烧伤使我不自信 0.028 0.105 0.787 19.由于手部烧伤我感觉自己很没用 0.163 0.037 0.921 20.一想到手部烧伤我就很沮丧 0.164 0.028 0.863 特征值 11.301 9.595 6.837 累计方差贡献率（%） 41.324 18.605 16.233 注：条目1、2填表说明为：请您根据过去1周的活动情况回答，条目3~5填表说明为下列问题与患手相关，若双手均烧伤，依据严重的一侧回答：条目6~10填表说明为请您根据过去1周的活动情况回答：条目11~15填表说明为：请根据患手情况回答问题，若双手均烧伤，依据严重的一侧回答，条目16、17填表说明为：请您根据过去4周的活动情况回答，条目18~20填表说明为：请您根据过去1周的活动情况回答；因子1、2、3分别为手部活动、手部感受、手部影响
下载: 导出CSV
期刊类型引用(5)
1. 赵文静，何永强，兰静. 手功能康复护理对手部烧伤患者的效果评价. 中国校医. 2024(02): 138-140+145 . 
百度学术2. 尹希，常菲，徐欢，邵丽佳，李佳，李金，曹洁，周萍. 应对方式在手部烧伤患者烧伤结局与伤残接受度间的中介效应. 军事护理. 2023(05): 54-57 . 百度学术3. 崇青青，陈丹，詹志恒，陈晶，单恩芳，李现文. 儿童对护士信任度量表的汉化及信效度检验. 中华行为医学与脑科学杂志. 2023(11): 1032-1037 . 百度学术4. 王永美，戴小华，简桂女，陈刚泉. 信息-动机-行为技巧模型下四位一体干预模式对手部烧伤后肢体功能恢复及负性心理状况的影响. 中国医学创新. 2022(17): 82-87 . 百度学术5. 陈雪姣，韩文娟，王静，陈赛君. 电子健康素养量表在老年糖尿病病人中的信效度检验及其健康素养影响因素分析. 循证护理. 2022(15): 2092-2095 . 百度学术其他类型引用(1)
-
百度学术
图(1) / 表(3)
计量
- 文章访问数: 183
- HTML全文浏览量: 127
- PDF下载量: 18
- 被引次数: 6
