Validation of traditional Chinese version of Sheffield Profile for Assessment and Referral for Care Questionnaire in Taiwanese patients.

BACKGROUND: Holistic health care considers all aspects of patient care, namely the physical, psychological, spiritual, and social aspects. To assess which patient needs are unmet, a screening questionnaire covering the four aforementioned aspects is required. Therefore, the Sheffield Profile for Assessment and Referral for Care (SPARC), a multidimensional, self-reported questionnaire designed to screen patients regardless of diagnosis, was developed. This study developed a translated and validated traditional Chinese version of the SPARC for patients in Taiwan. METHODS: The original English version of the SPARC was translated into a traditional Chinese version (SPARC-T) through forward-backward translation. Semistructured debriefing interviews were conducted with participants to evaluate the SPARC-T. The reliability and validity of the SPARC-T were assessed through Cronbach's alpha coefficients and a correlation analysis conducted using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) questionnaire. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were enrolled from our hospital: 22 had cancer but the majority had nonmalignant chronic conditions. About internal consistency, the Cronbach's alpha values for all domains of the SPARC-T were favorable. A correlation analysis of the SPARC-T and FACT-G revealed significant correlations for the domains of physical symptoms, independence and activity, family and social issues, sleep, and treatment issues; no significant correlation was identified for the "psychological issues" domain. CONCLUSION: This study revealed that the SPARC-T is an effective tool for screening Mandarin-speaking patients. Thus, it can be used in hospitals to holistically screen and identify the needs of patients to ensure they can receive appropriate professional support and holistic health care.

Effect of patient decision aids on decisional conflict and regret associated with breast cancer surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with breast cancer encounter difficulties in making surgical treatment decisions. Shared decision-making (SDM) with patient decision aids (PDAs) can minimize patients' decisional conflicts. However, the effect of PDAs in Asia remains inconclusive. This study investigated the effect of SDM assisted by PDAs on the decisional conflict of patients with breast cancer. METHODS: In this two-group, outcome assessor-blind, randomized controlled trial, 151 patients diagnosed as having breast cancer were assigned to the PDA (SDM with PDA) group or the standard (SDM without PDA) group. Demographic and clinical variables were analyzed to identify variables affecting the treatment choice. The patients' decision-making difficulties were evaluated using the four-item SURE scale during preoperative hospitalization, and decisional conflicts were examined using the five-item Decision Regret scale and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) 1 month after surgery. RESULTS: The choice of breast conservation therapy and mastectomy did not significantly differ between the PDA and standard groups. The PDA group had a higher level of depression after making decisions (P = 0.029) than did the standard group. No significant difference in the total scores of the SURE scale and Decision Regret scale were noted between the groups. CONCLUSION: PDAs did not assist the patients with breast cancer in making breast surgery-related decisions. Clinicians should focus on SDM grounded in evidence-based medicine with care and help patients consider their individual preferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT03105076; April 7, 2017 ( http://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ).