摘要：Background: Promoting breastfeeding support by public health nurses (PHN) requires first that the support which they currently provide to be assessed. However, there is no assessment tool for this purpose. The aim of this study was therefore to develop a scale to assess breastfeeding support currently provided by PHN. Methods: We developed the Practice of Breastfeeding Support Scale (PBSS) for PHN based on the results of a previous study. The content validity of the PBSS was established through discussion with three other researchers. A pilot study was conducted to confirm face validity. To confirm reliability and validity, an anonymous, self-reported questionnaire was sent to PHN working in municipal offices. The statistical analyses included the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO), Barlett’s Test of Sphericity, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), Cronbach’s alpha and correlation coefficient. Results: 768 PHN participated in this study. Cronbach’s alpha of PBSS was 0.85. The KMO measure was 0.892, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was p Conclusion: The reliability and validity of PBSS were confirmed. These findings suggested that the PBSS has the potential to help promote breastfeeding support by PHN by clarifying their current breastfeeding support practices and related factors.

摘要：Background: The promotion of family nursing by public health nurses (PHN) presupposes an accurate assessment of the family nursing support they already provide. However, as there is no assessment tool for this purpose, this study aimed to develop a scale to assess family nursing currently provided by PHN. Methods: We developed the family nursing Practice Scale (FNPS) for PHN based on the results of a previous study. The content validity of the FNPS was established through discussion with three other researchers. A pilot study was conducted to confirm face validity. To confirm reliability and validity, an anonymous, self-reported questionnaire was sent to PHN working in municipal offices. The statistical analyses included the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO), Barlett’s Test of Sphericity, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), Cronbach’s alpha, correlation coefficient and t-test. Results: Seven hundred fifty-four PHN participated in this study. Cronbach’s alpha of FNPS was 0.94. The KMO measure was 0.948, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was p < 0.01. Two factors together accounted for 63.2% of the variance in EFA. No items were excluded because of low loadings. Construct validity was confirmed through comparison with categories from a previous study. The correlation coefficient of FNPS and selected items of the Practice of Breastfeeding Support Scale was r = 0.56 (p < 0.01). The result of the t-test showed that the FNPS score of PNH who had received training in family nursing was significantly higher than that of PHN who had not (t = -2.0;p < 0.05). Conclusion: The reliability and validity of the FNPS were confirmed. The FNPS comprised 15 items and two factors. The score for “Active support for the family” was lower than “Support given with awareness of the family’s situation.” The findings of this study strongly suggested that the FNPS would be effective in clarifying the current state of family nursing provided by PHN and factors related to this activity and thus greatly ass

摘要：目的汇总11个开展家庭医疗服务的专业姑息治疗团队效应。设计进行一项回顾性队列研究的汇总分析。地点加拿大，安大略省。参与者3109名在2009-2011年接受专业姑息治疗团队医疗服务的患者（暴露组）及3109名在此期间接受常规医疗服务的患者（非暴露组）。干预措施虽然这些姑息治疗团队所在地区和规模不同，但包含了相同的核心团队成员和角色分配，即能够为患者在其家中提供综合姑息治疗的姑息治疗专科医师、护士和家庭医生，团队任务包括全天候的管理症状、给予医疗信息和治疗措施以及协调服务。主要结局测量指标患者（a）在死亡前最后2周在医院度过；（b）死亡前最后2周有过急诊；（c）在医院内死亡。结果暴露组和非暴露组中癌症患者约占80％，且78％患者接受临终家庭医疗护理服务的平均时间相同。在所有姑息治疗团队中，暴露组中分别有970（31．2％）和896（28．9％）名患者在生命最后2周住院治疗和有急诊经历，而在非暴露组，分别为1219（39．3％）和1070（34．5％）名患者（P〈0．001）。暴露组与非暴露组患者在生命终期住院和经历急诊的汇总相对危险度分别为0．68[95％可信区间（CI，0．61～0．76）]和0．77[95％CI（0．69～0．86）]。与非暴露组相比，暴露组患者选择院内死亡的更少[503（16．2％）比887（28．6％），P〈0．01]，且在医院内濒死的汇总相对危险度为0．46（0．40-0．52）。结论尽管社区专业姑息治疗团队的组成和地区不同，但均能有效降低患者临终时急诊及选择在医院内死亡比例。

摘要：背景:对于与随机对照试验(randomized controlled trial,RCT)有关的学术会议论文或期刊中发表的文章来说,清楚、明了、信息量充足的摘要是十分重要的,因为读者经常仅仅根据报告的摘要对一个临床试验作出评价。为此,我们需要对"临床试验报告的统一标准(Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials,CONSORT)声明"进行扩充,制定一个期刊与学术会议论文摘要中报告RCT的必备条目清单。今后在任何期刊发表的论文或学术会议论文摘要中,作者对RCT结果的报告都要包含这些内容。方法与结果:我们根据现有的质量评价工具和基于经验的证据总结出一个条目清单。运用三轮修正式德尔菲法(modified-Delphi process)进行条目筛选。邀请共计109人参与电子网络调查,反馈率为61%。调查结果于2007年1月在加拿大蒙特贝罗举行的CONSORT小组会议中公布,与会的26人中有临床试验实施人员、统计学家、流行病学家以及生物医学编辑。经过讨论最终确定条目,随后对其进行修订以保证这些条目体现了会议期间以及会后的讨论思路。摘要CONSORT建议RCT报告的摘要需要有一个结构化的格式,其中应该包括具体的试验目的、试验设计(随机分配的方法、盲法或遮蔽等)、研究对象(对象描述、随机分组的样本量以及用于分析的样本量)、每组实施的干预、实施的干预对主要疗效结果的影响及其危害、试验结论、试验注册名称和编号以及资金来源。本文对每一条能够找到例子的纳入条目都配有良好报告范例、基本原理以及证据等,十分明了易懂,因此我们建议与清单同时使用。结论:摘要CONSORT旨在改善期刊与学术会议中发表的论文摘要的质量,这将有助于摘要提供详尽清晰的信息,这些信息能够帮助读者对试验的有效性和试验结果的适用性做出正确的评价。