ABSTRACT
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to develop a “Multidisciplinary Collaboration Ability Scale (MCAS)” and examine the reliability and validity for medical professionals engaged in cancer care. Method: The first MCAS draft was created, and the content validity and surface validity of the scale were examined for medical professionals. Next, a cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted on medical professionals engaged in cancer care who worked in medical institutions. Exploratory factor analysis and known-groups technique were carried out, coefficient α calculated, and concurrent validity examined. This study was conducted with the approval of the research ethics review. Result: Exploratory factor analysis resulted in 33 items of 4 factors (ability to promote discussion, foundational relationship building, self-control, and problem-solving activities). The MCAS score was significantly higher for those who had participated in a multidisciplinary workshop and those who had more years of experience. Coefficient α for the entire scale and for each factor was .80 and above. Examination of concurrent validity showed a moderate correlation. Conclusion: The reliability and validity of MCAS in its development stage were generally verified.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research was to develop a reflection program to support the practice of end-of-life care for nurses and to examine its effectiveness and feasibility. We developed and examined the effectiveness of a facilitator-based reflection program (FRP) and card-based reflection program (CRP). Average scores for both the FRP and CRP were measured using a Knowledge, Attitude and Difficulty Scale for palliative care and Self-education Ability Scale implemented before, immediately after, and 3 months after the program. The changes in scores were compared. This research was conducted with approval from the ethics review committee. Nine people participated in the FRP, and 15 in the CRP. FRP significantly reduced difficulty concerning palliative care compared to CRP. FRP significantly increased knowledge compared to CRP. Similar results were obtained within the FRP group. Both FRP and CRP were considered highly feasible because the program evaluation was high. In the future, it is necessary to clarify the effect of the reflection program by reviewing the research design.