Validation of an Instrument to Measure Family Engagement in Acute Cardiac Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Engaging families in care leads to improved patient- and family-centreed outcomes and is recommended by cardiovascular societies. However, no validated tools are currently available to measure family engagement in acute cardiac care. We previously described the development of the FAMily Engagement (FAME) instrument. The purpose of this study is to validate the FAME instrument in acute cardiac care. Methods The FAME questionnaire was administered to family members of patients in a cardiovascular intensive care unit and ward at an academic tertiary care hospital in Montreal, Canada. After hospital discharge, we assessed family satisfaction in the intensive care unit (FS-ICU) and mental health (using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]). Higher FAME scores indicate increased care engagement. Reliability was assessed using internal consistency testing. Predictive validity was evaluated by assessing the relationship between the FAME score and the FS-ICU score and whether the FAME score was correlated with the HADS score. Convergent validity was assessed by comparing the FAME score with engagement elements of the FS-ICU score. Results A total of 160 family participants were included (age 54.8 ± 14.8 years; 66% women; 36% non-White). The most common relationships to the patient were spouse/partner and adult child (both n = 62; 39%). The mean FAME score was 70.8 ± 16.0. The FAME instrument had high internal consistency (Cronbach's a = 0.86). The FAME score was associated with family satisfaction in the multivariable analysis ( P < 0.001). No correlation occurred between FAME and HADS anxiety or depression scores. Conclusions The FAME tool demonstrated reliability and convergent and predictive validity in the acute care cardiac population. Further research is needed to explore whether selected engagement interventions can impact the FAME score favourably.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".