Abstract

Objective:

Care burden threatens the physical, psychological, emotional, and functional health of caregivers. Caring for patients with delirium leads to stress, increased emotional load and workload in nurses. The strain of care for delirium index (SCDI) was developed to measure the subjective burden of nurse’s experience in the care of patients with delirium. The aim of this study is to examine the Turkish validity and reliability of the " The strain of care for delirium index ".

Materials and Methods:

This study was conducted in a methodological and cross-sectional type. The sample consisted of 102 nurses working in the intensive care unit for at least 6 months.

Results:

The goodness-fit indices obtained in the confirmatory factor analysis were at an acceptable level. In the explanatory factor analysis of the scale, factor loads were found to be between 0.343 and 0.865. Item-to- total correlation coefficients ranged from 0.298 to 0.627 and above 0.20 for each item.

Conclusion:

Reliability refers to consistency between independent measurements of the same thing. In this study, Cronbach's alpha coefficient and item-total correlations were used to measure reliability. In this study, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.89. Therefore, SCDI has been accepted as a highly reliable measurement tool. In the reliability analysis of the original index, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was found to be 0.88. The Turkish version of the SCDI is a valid and reliable scale to evaluate the care difficulty of nurses caring for patients with delirium.

Keywords: Care burden, critical care, delirium, nursing, reliability and validity

References

  1. Çam O, Engin E. Ruh Hastalıkları Hemşireliği Bakım Sanatı. 1. ed. İstanbul: İstanbul Tıp Kitabevi; 2014.
  2. Fan Y, Guo Y, Li Q, Zhu X. A review: nursing of intensive care unit delirium. Journal of Neuroscience Nursing. 2012;44:307-16.
  3. Jung P, Puts M, Frankel N, Syed AT, Alam Z, Yeung L, et al. Delirium incidence, risk factors, and treatments in older adults receiving chemotherapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Geriatric Oncology. 2021;12(3):352-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgo.2020.08.011 .
  4. Lee A, Mu J, Joynt G, Chiu C, Lai V, Gin T, et al. Risk prediction models for delirium in the intensive care unit after cardiac surgery: a systematic review and independent external validation. BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2017;118(3):391-9.
  5. Shao S-C, Lai C-C, Chen Y-H, Chen Y-C, Hung M-J, Liao S-C. Prevalence, incidence and mortality of delirium in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age and ageing. 2021;50(5):1445-53. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afab103 .
  6. Kang J, Lee M, Ko H, Kim S, Yun S, Jeong Y, et al. Effect of nonpharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium in the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of critical care. 2018;48:372-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.09.032 .
  7. Tilouche N, Hassen MF, Ali HBS, Jaoued O, Gharbi R, El Atrous SS. Delirium in the intensive care unit: incidence, risk factors, and impact on outcome. Indian journal of critical care medicine: peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine. 2018;22(3):144.
  8. Wilson JE, Mart MF, Cunningham C, Shehabi Y, Girard TD, MacLullich AM, et al. Delirium. Nature Reviews Disease Primers. 2020;6(1):1-26. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-020-00223-4.
  9. Detroyer E, Dobbels F, Debonnaire D, Irving K, Teodorczuk A, Fick DM, et al. The effect of an interactive delirium e-learning tool on healthcare workers’ delirium recognition, knowledge and strain in caring for delirious patients: a pilot pre-test/post-test study. BMC medical education. 2016;16(1):1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0537-0 .
  10. Tan H, Zhou L, Wu S, Dong Q, Yang L, Xu J, et al. Subjective strain of care experienced by pulmonary and critical care medical nurses when caring for patients with delirium: a cross-sectional study. BMC Health Services Research. 2021;21(1):1-7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06860-z .
  11. Sanson G, Khlopenyuk Y, Milocco S, Sartori M, Dreas L, Fabiani A. Delirium after cardiac surgery. Incidence, phenotypes, predisposing and precipitating risk factors, and effects. Heart & Lung. 2018;47(4):408-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2018.04.005 .
  12. Işıl Ö, Yaşlı ON. demanslı bireye bakım verenlerde bakım yükü ve yaklaşımlar. T3 rkiye Klinikleri Dergisi. 2016;2(1):74-80.
  13. Liu Z, Heffernan C, Tan J. Caregiver burden: A concept analysis. International journal of nursing sciences. 2020;7(4):438-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnss.2020.07.012.
  14. Schmitt EM, Gallagher J, Albuquerque A, Tabloski P, Lee HJ, Gleason L, et al. Perspectives on the delirium experience and its burden: common themes among older patients, their family caregivers, and nurses. The Gerontologist. 2019;59(2):327-37.
  15. Karasar N. Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi, Nobel Yayınevi 14. Baskı, Ankara. 2005:81-3.
  16. Şencan H. Sosyal ve Davranışsal Ölçümlerde Güvenirlik ve Geçerlilik. 1. ed. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi 2005.
  17. Tavşancıl E. Ölçme ile ilgili temel kavramlar. Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. 3. ed: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım; 2006.
  18. Milisen K, Cremers S, Foreman MD, Vandevelde E, Haspeslagh M, De Geest S, et al. The strain of care for Delirium Index: a new instrument to assess nurses’ strain in caring for patients with delirium. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2004;41(7):775-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2004.03.005.
  19. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in nursing & health. 2006;29(5):489-97.
  20. Gürbüz S, Şahin F. Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri Felsefe-Yöntem-Analiz. 4. ed: Seçkin Yayınevi.; 2017.
  21. Kalaycı S. SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. 5. ed: Asil Yayın Dağıtım Ltd. Şti.; 2010.
  22. Tavşancıl E. Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım; 2010.
  23. Polit DF, Beck CT. Essentials of nursing research:Appraising evidence for nursing practice. 7 ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.; 2010.
  24. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using Multivariate Statistics. Rotation. Oblique Rotation. . 6. ed. USA: Pearson Education Limited; 2014. 491,2,501. p.
  25. Çapık C, Gözüm S, Aksayan S. Kültürlerarası ölçek uyarlama aşamaları, dil ve kültür uyarlaması: Güncellenmiş rehber. Florence Nightingale Journal of Nursing. 2018;26(3):199-210. https://doi.org/10.26650/FNJN397481.
  26. Yurdugül H. Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında kapsam geçerlik indeksinin kullanımı. 2012.
  27. Yusoff MSB. ABC of content validation and content validity index calculation. Resource. 2019;11(2):49-54. https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2019.11.2.6
  28. Doğan İ, Doğan N. Ölçek Geliştirme Çalışmalarında Kullanılan İçerik Geçerliliğine Genel Bir Bakış. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Biostatistics. 2019;11(2).
  29. Uyumaz G, Dirlik EM, Çokluk Ö. AÇIMLAYICI FAKTÖR ANALİZİNDE TEKRAR EDİLEBİLİRLİK: KAVRAM VE UYGULAMA. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2016;16(2):659-75.
  30. Aytaç M, Öngen B. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile yeni çevresel paradigma ölçeğinin yapı geçerliliğinin incelenmesi. İstatistikçiler Dergisi: İstatistik ve Aktüerya. 2012;5(1):14-22.
  31. ÇAPIK C. Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalişmalarinda doğrulayici faktör analizinin kullanimi. Anadolu Hemşirelik ve Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2014;17(3):196-205.
  32. Evci N, Aylar F. Derleme: Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında doğrulayıcı faktör analizinin kullanımı. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2017;4(10):389-412.
  33. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic journal of business research methods. 2008;6(1):pp53‑60-pp53‑60.
  34. Erkorkmaz Ü, Etikan İ, Demir O, Özdamar K, Sanisoğlu SY. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve uyum indeksleri. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Medical Sciences. 2013;33(1):210-23.
  35. Schubert A-L, Hagemann D, Voss A, Bergmann K. Evaluating the model fit of diffusion models with the root mean square error of approximation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 2017;77:29-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2016.08.004
  36. Wang K, Xu Y, Wang C, Tan M, Chen P. A corrected goodness-of-fit index (CGFI) for model evaluation in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2020;27(5):735-49. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10705511.2019.1695213 (accessed:13.09.2022).
  37. Gözüm S, Aksayan S. Kültürlerarası Ölçek Uyarlaması için Rehber II: Psikometrik Özellikler ve Kültürlerarası Karşılaştırma. Hemşirelikte Araştırma Geliştirme Dergisi 2003(5(1)):3-14.
  38. Shou Y, Sellbom M, Chen H-F. Fundamentals of Measurement in Clinical Psychology. Journal: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818697-8.00110-2 .

Copyright and license

Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite?

1.
Ulus M, Durmaz Edeer A. Strain of Care for Delirium Index: Validity and Reliability. Turk J Intensive Care. 2024;22(4):296-304. https://doi.org/10.4274/tybd.galenos.2023.71676