Inpatient Dignity Scale: Mandarin translation and psychometric characteristics evaluation

Abstract

Within the development of humanistic care, nursing staff are required to attend to the psychological condition of the patient when providing care, as the patient's psychological condition may influence the recovery from disease. One aspect of the delivery of humanistic care is the importance of patient dignity in the field of health care has been widely recognized internationally. The Code of Ethics for Nurses adopted in 2012 by the International Council of Nurses (ICN, 2012) states that "Inherent in nursing is a respect for human rights, including cultural rights, the right to life and choice, to dignity and to be treated with respect." This code covers aspects associated with dignity and it is used as a guide for nursing associations in many countries/regions in the world. For example, the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF), Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia (NMBA), and Australian College of Nursing (ACN) all agreed to adopt this ICN Code (Blackwood & Chiarella, 2020).

Self‐report instruments for measuring patient dignity: A psychometric systematic review

“…Of these, all four studies were rated ‘adequate’ for convergent validity/concurrent validity. However, two studies (Ota et al, 2019; Rullán et al, 2015) were rated ‘very good’ for known‐groups validity, and two studies (Huang et al, 2022; Parpa et al, 2017) were ‘doubtful’ quality because these studies did not report differences in mean scores between groups. Three studies (Di Lorenzo et al, 2017, 2018; Ge et al, 2016) assessed concurrent validity and were rated ‘very good’ quality.…”

“…There were moderate to strong correlations between the target instruments and comparator instruments, and the hypotheses were supported. To the authors' knowledge, the criterion validity in two studies (Huang et al, 2022; Ota et al, 2019) is preferred to the convergent validity because no ‘gold standard’ instrument for measuring patient dignity was identified. Moreover, measurement error was not evaluated for any instrument; therefore, there is inadequate evidence to interpret whether the systematic and random error of a score contributes to true changes in the construct being assessed.…”

“…However, Ota et al (2019) did not examine cross‐cultural validity. Huang et al (2022) translated the IPDS into Mandarin Chinese and validated the scale for patients in tertiary hospitals in Guangzhou City, China. Due to the uniqueness of the social and cultural background of people in China, the factor analysis of the Mandarin Chinese version was performed differently from the original version.…”

Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of fear of hospitalization scale among outpatients: A validation study

“…Studies have shown that patients’ perceptions of pain, threat, and unknown prognostic risks associated with medical events can lead to medical fear, often accompanied by motor agitation and somatic autonomic dysfunction, resulting in anxiety, fear, panic, panic attacks, excessive sweating, and trembling of the hands and feet ( Cornelius et al, 2018 ; Chang, 2019 ; Hadasik et al, 2021 ). During hospitalization, patients may feel a lack of privacy and severe limitations on self-direction, loss of personal space, and freedom to move around because they can no longer do anything for themselves and others ( Weltens et al, 2021 ; Huang et al, 2022 ). They also feel helpless, angry, and insecure because of separation from their loved ones ( Hall et al, 2022 ; Tavakoli et al, 2022 ).…”