Development and validation of behavioral Assessment scale of medication management plan for female epileptic patients of childbearing age_Journal of Epilepsy

Authors：

WU Yueting ¹ , ZI Wenyan ¹ , XI Li ¹ , GAO Gai ² , ZHONG Yinqin ³ ,  LI Wenwu ¹ , LI Cang ¹ , DONG Zimei ¹

1. Neurology Department, People’s Hospital of Chuxiong Yi Autonomous Prefecture, Chuxiong 675000, China;
2. Neurological Rehabilitation Department, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan 430000, China;
3. Dean's Office, Shenzhen Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Shenzhen 518034, China;

Corresponding author：

LI Wenwu, Email: 1126112992@qq.com

Keywords：

Women with epilepsy; Theory of planned behavior; Assessment scale; Reliability; Validity

DOI：

10.7507/2096-0247.202504008

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To develop a behavioral assessment scale for medication management plans in women of childbearing age with epilepsy and to test its reliability and validity. Methods Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior, a pool of questionnaire items was initially drafted through literature review and focus group discussions. A two-round Delphi expert consultation was conducted with 15 experts to form a test version of the behavioral assessment scale for medication management plans in women of childbearing age with epilepsy (including 27 items and 5 dimensions). Convenience sampling was used to conduct surveys among women of childbearing age with epilepsy in some tertiary hospitals in Chuxiong, Shenzhen and Wuhan from February to May 2024 (the first time) and from June to October 2024 (the second time). Results The effective recovery rates of the two rounds of questionnaires were 95.5% and 94.6%, respectively. The final scale included 24 items and 5 dimensions, with good reliability and validity: the content validity index (S-CVI) was 0.934, Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.876, split-half reliability was 0.819, and test-retest reliability was 0.901; exploratory factor analysis extracted 5 factors (cumulative variance explained rate 73.97%, item load 0.42~0.85), and confirmatory factor analysis showed that the model had good fit (χ²/df=1.849, RMSEA=0.075, CFI, GFI, AGFI, IFI, TLI all>0.85). Conclusion The scale meets the reliability and validity standards and can be used to assess the medication management plans and behaviors of women of childbearing age with epilepsy.

1.	Ng AC, Chahine M, Scantlebury MH, et al. Channelopathies in epilepsy: an overview of clinical presentations, pathogenic mechanisms, and therapeutic insights. J Neurol, 2024, 271(6): 3063-3094.
2.	李悦仪, 卢雪珍, 戴传英. 综合护理干预对生育期癫痫女性妊娠结局及生活质量的影响及依从性观察. 中国医药科学, 2018, 8(10): 154-156.
3.	La Neve A, Falcicchio G, Trojano M, et al. Seizure medication and planned pregnancy: balancing the risks and outcomes. Expert Rev Neurother, 2022, 22(7): 527-539.
4.	李彦霖. 住院女性癫痫病例特点及危险因素分析. 山东大学, 2022, 硕士学位论文.
5.	陈文静, 席从林, 宋静. 成人癫痫患者服药依从性个体化预测模型的建立与验证. 实用临床医药志, 2023, 27(22): 118-122.
6.	Beniczky S, Trinka E, Wirrell E, et al. Updated classification of epileptic seizures: Position paper of the International League Against Epilepsy. Epilepsia, 2025, Apr 23. Online ahead of print.
7.	张灿, 史静华. 计划行为理论在慢性病管理中的应用研究进展. 护理研究, 2023, 37(7): 1208-1212.
8.	Hou S, Li B, Luo Y, et al. Creation and location-specific revision of a core nursing outcomes evaluation system based on nursing outcomes classification for stroke inpatients in China. Int J Nurs Knowl, 2019, 30(3): 154-161.
9.	倪平, 陈京立, 刘娜. 护理研究中量性研究的样本量估计. 中华护理杂志, 2010, 45(4): 378-380.
10.	Chalès G. How should we manage asymptomatic hyperuricemia?Joint Bone Spine, 2019, 86(4): 437-443.
11.	张毅, 汪健健, 邓艳红, 等. 护士人文素养自评量表的研制及信效度检验. 中华护理杂志, 2022, 57(9): 1120-1128.
12.	王亚玲, 李惠玲. 安宁疗护护士共情能力量表的编制及信效度检验. 中华护理杂志, 2023, 58(13): 1565-1571.
13.	吴明隆. 结构方程模型: AMOS的操作与应用(第2版). 重庆: 重庆大学出版社, 2010: 236-237.
14.	Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1991, 50(2): 179-211.
15.	李峥, 刘宇. 护理学研究方法(第2版). 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2018.
16.	Barbaranelli C, Lee CS, Vellone E, et al. The problem with Cronbach's Alpha: comment on Sijtsma and van der Ark (2015). Nurs Res, 2015, 64(2): 140-145.

1. Ng AC, Chahine M, Scantlebury MH, et al. Channelopathies in epilepsy: an overview of clinical presentations, pathogenic mechanisms, and therapeutic insights. J Neurol, 2024, 271(6): 3063-3094.
2. 李悦仪, 卢雪珍, 戴传英. 综合护理干预对生育期癫痫女性妊娠结局及生活质量的影响及依从性观察. 中国医药科学, 2018, 8(10): 154-156.
3. La Neve A, Falcicchio G, Trojano M, et al. Seizure medication and planned pregnancy: balancing the risks and outcomes. Expert Rev Neurother, 2022, 22(7): 527-539.
4. 李彦霖. 住院女性癫痫病例特点及危险因素分析. 山东大学, 2022, 硕士学位论文.
5. 陈文静, 席从林, 宋静. 成人癫痫患者服药依从性个体化预测模型的建立与验证. 实用临床医药志, 2023, 27(22): 118-122.
6. Beniczky S, Trinka E, Wirrell E, et al. Updated classification of epileptic seizures: Position paper of the International League Against Epilepsy. Epilepsia, 2025, Apr 23. Online ahead of print.
7. 张灿, 史静华. 计划行为理论在慢性病管理中的应用研究进展. 护理研究, 2023, 37(7): 1208-1212.
8. Hou S, Li B, Luo Y, et al. Creation and location-specific revision of a core nursing outcomes evaluation system based on nursing outcomes classification for stroke inpatients in China. Int J Nurs Knowl, 2019, 30(3): 154-161.
9. 倪平, 陈京立, 刘娜. 护理研究中量性研究的样本量估计. 中华护理杂志, 2010, 45(4): 378-380.
10. Chalès G. How should we manage asymptomatic hyperuricemia?Joint Bone Spine, 2019, 86(4): 437-443.
11. 张毅, 汪健健, 邓艳红, 等. 护士人文素养自评量表的研制及信效度检验. 中华护理杂志, 2022, 57(9): 1120-1128.
12. 王亚玲, 李惠玲. 安宁疗护护士共情能力量表的编制及信效度检验. 中华护理杂志, 2023, 58(13): 1565-1571.
13. 吴明隆. 结构方程模型: AMOS的操作与应用(第2版). 重庆: 重庆大学出版社, 2010: 236-237.
14. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1991, 50(2): 179-211.
15. 李峥, 刘宇. 护理学研究方法(第2版). 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2018.
16. Barbaranelli C, Lee CS, Vellone E, et al. The problem with Cronbach's Alpha: comment on Sijtsma and van der Ark (2015). Nurs Res, 2015, 64(2): 140-145.

Journal of Epilepsy

Latest ArticlesDevelopment and validation of behavioral Assessment scale of medication management plan for female epileptic patients of childbearing age

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Format

Content