Search

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., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest related to the subject matter or materials discussed in this article., (Copyright © 2023, the Chinese Medical Association.)

Background: Shared decision making using patient decision aids (PtDAs) was established over a decade ago, but few studies have evaluated its efficacy in Asian countries. We therefore evaluated the application of PtDAs in a decision conflict between two muscle relaxant reversal agents, neostigmine and sugammadex, and sequentially analyzed the regional differences and operating room turnover rates., Methods: This multicenter, outcome-assessor-blind, randomized controlled trial included 3,132 surgical patients from two medical centers admitted between March 2020 and August 2020. The patients were randomly divided into the classical and PtDA groups for pre-anesthesia consultations. Their clinicodemographic characteristics were analyzed to identify variables influencing the choice of reversal agent. On the day of the pre-anesthesia consultation, the patients completed the four SURE scale (sure of myself, understand information, risk-benefit ratio, encouragement) screening items. The operating turnover rates were also evaluated using anesthesia records., Results: Compared with the classical group, the PtDA group felt more confident about receiving sufficient medical information (P < 0.001), felt better informed about the advantages and disadvantages of the medications (P < 0.001), exhibited a superior understanding of the benefits and risks of their options (P < 0.001), and felt surer about their choice (P < 0.001). Moreover, the PtDA group had a significantly greater tendency to choose sugammadex over neostigmine (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: PtDA interventions in pre-anesthesia consultations provided surgical patients with clear knowledge and better support. PtDAs should be made available in other medical fields to enhance shared clinical decision-making.