Development and validation of the Family Meaning of Nursing-Home Visits Scale

School of Nursing, Chang Gung University, Tao-Yuan, Taiwan.
Journal of Clinical Nursing (Impact Factor: 1.26). 06/2012; 21(15-16):2108-17. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04150.x
Source: PubMed


The purpose of this study was to develop and test a Family Meaning of Nursing-Home Visits Scale that can be used to assess and document family members' rationale for visiting nursing home residents.
Understanding the meaning ascribed by families for visiting nursing home residents is necessary to develop intervention programmes that facilitate the quality of families' nursing home visits. No valid and reliable instrument is available in Taiwan or elsewhere to accurately document the meaning of family visits to nursing home residents.
A cross-sectional design was used to collect survey data from family members of nursing home residents as the quantitative component of a mixed-methods study. Items were developed based on qualitative data from our previous research and that of others. This initial pool of items was used to develop and validate the scale.
The validity of the scale was confirmed by exploratory factor analysis and criterion-related validity testing. Internal consistency reliability was assessed by Cronbach's alphas.
Factor analysis yielded a six-factor final solution (32 items), accounting for 66·76% of the variance. For criterion-related validity, 'responsibility for care quality' was negatively correlated with satisfaction with nursing home caregiving (r = -0·23, p < 0·01) and nursing home rehabilitation activities (r = -0·17, p < 0·05). Cronbach's α for each subscale ranged from 0·68-0·98, and Cronbach's α for the total scale was 0·83.
The Family Meaning of Nursing-Home Visits Scale has acceptable internal consistency reliability, good content validity and acceptable construct validity.
The Family Meaning of Nursing-Home Visits Scale provides nurses and healthcare providers an objective and consistent method to explore the priority of meanings family members assign to nursing home visits. Based on this priority for visiting, interventions could be designed to increase the quality of visits, thus promoting families' continued incentive to visit in person.

1 Follower
20 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to understand the prevalence and risk factors for depressive symptoms among nursing home residents' family caregivers in Taiwan. Methods: Family caregivers (n = 191) of nursing home residents were recruited by stratified random sampling from 16 nursing homes throughout Taiwan. Data were collected from caregivers in face-to-face interviews on depressive status (using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; CES-D), on meaning ascribed to visiting nursing home residents (using the Family Meaning of Nursing-Home Visits scale), and on demographic data. Factors related to depressive symptoms were analyzed by multiple logistic regression. Results: The prevalence of depressive status among family caregivers was 29.8 % as determined by the CES-D cutoff score of ≥10. The non-depressed group (CES-D <10) tended to visit residents for emotional maintenance (odds = 0.54), while the depressed group (CES-D ≥10) tended to visit due to sense of responsibility for monitoring care quality (odds = 3.25). These results demonstrate that risk factors for depressive symptoms in family caregivers were their age, self-perceived health status, education level, and being the resident's main caregiver before admission. Conclusion: These results fill a gap in knowledge by providing detailed, evidence-based data on family caregivers' priorities for visiting nursing home residents and it is related to depression. These results also provide useful information for designing intervention protocols to reduce depressive symptoms in family caregivers of nursing home residents, not only in Asian countries, but also in western countries with many Chinese/Asian immigrants.
    Social Psychiatry 01/2013; 48(7). DOI:10.1007/s00127-013-0652-8 · 2.54 Impact Factor