4.5 Article

Reliability testing of the FAMCARE-2 scale: measuring family carer satisfaction with palliative care

Journal

PALLIATIVE MEDICINE
Volume 24, Issue 7, Pages 674-681

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0269216310373166

Keywords

Caregiver satisfaction; palliative care; FAMCARE-2; PCOC

Funding

  1. Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Health and Ageing

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Measuring carers' perceived satisfaction with services is crucial if services are going to continually improve their responsiveness to the needs of those they serve. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability of the next generation FAMCARE tool, which was adapted to reflect inpatient and team-based care using palliative care services who are participating in the Australian Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration. FAMCARE-2 was distributed to a consecutive cohort of carers whilst in the caregiving role nationally. Analyses of internal consistency, generated structure and relationships of satisfaction with service provision by three demographic variables were undertaken. A total of 497 carers were recruited from 29 palliative care services across Australia, a mix of inpatient and community services. The scale achieved a high level of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.93) and item-to-total correlation coefficient of 0.49-0.72. Factor analysis of FAMCARE-2 revealed a 4-factor structure (management of physical symptoms and comfort, provision of information, family support and patient psychological care). Results of the survey indicated satisfaction with service provision across the FAMCARE-2 subscales. Older, female carers without a culturally and linguistically diverse background were more satisfied with service provision. We conclude that FAMCARE-2 is a psychometrically sound instrument useful for measuring family carer satisfaction with service provision in a variety of palliative care settings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available