ABSTRACT
Objective: The aim of this study was to perform across-cultural adaptation of the English version of the personalized psychological flexibility index (PPFI) into Chinese, and to evaluate its psychometric properties in patients with cancer. Methods: This study was conducted in two phases. In phase 1, we followed Beaton's guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of PPFI. In phase 2, we conducted a cross-sectional study to assess the validity and reliability of the PPFI among a total of 455 patients with cancer in Hunan Province of China. Item analysis was used to evaluate and screen items, while content validity, construct validity, convergent validity, and concurrent validity were used to evaluate the validity. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's É coefficient, retest reliability, and composite reliability. Results: The item-level content validity index of the modified Chinese version of PPFI (PPFI-C) ranged from 0.89 to 1.00, the scale-level CVI/universal agreement was 0.87, and the S-CVI/average was 0.99. Exploratory factor analysis identified a 14-item, three-factor structure of PPFI (item 11 deleted). Confirmatory factor analysis showed χ2/df â= â2.42, RMSEA â= â0.07, GFI â= â0.92, NFI â= â0.91, TLI â= â0.93, CFI â= â0.95, and IFI â= â0.95. PPFI-C demonstrated positive correlations with the 8-item Commitment Action Questionnaire, and negative correlations with Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Short Form Quality Life Scale. The Cronbach's É coefficient of modified PPFI-C stood at 0.84. Conclusions: The results suggest that the 14-item PPFI-C is a reliable and valid tool for measuring PF in Chinese patients with cancer. However, additional studies are needed to validate the psychometric properties of PPFI-C in other populations.
ABSTRACT
Objective: The present study explored the construction and application of a standardized postoperative pain-management procedure for patients with perianal abscess. Methods: Two study groups (the observation group and the intervention group) were established retrospectively. The observation group comprised 46 patients with perianal abscess who enrolled in this study between June 2019 and June 2020. The intervention group comprised 48 patients who enrolled in the study between July 2020 and July 2021. All patients were enrolled using the convenience sampling method. A pain-management team was established, and standardized procedure management was implemented in the intervention group, while routine pain management was implemented in the observation group. Indices related to the patients' postoperative pain-control satisfaction and rehabilitation were compared between the two groups. Results: The patients' pain-control satisfaction, wound edema score, edema disappearance time, urinary retention, and defecation difficulty following intervention were better in the intervention group than in the observation group, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05 for all). Conclusion: The implementation of the standardized postoperative pain-management procedure in patients with perianal abscess can effectively improve the patient's level of pain and satisfaction and promote rehabilitation.
