Skip to main content
Download PDF

Developing and validating the nurse-patient relationship scale (NPRS) in China

BMC Nursing volume 23, Article number: 255 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Poor nurse-patient relationship poses an obstacle to care delivery, jeopardizing patient experience and patient care outcomes. Measuring nurse-patient relationship is challenging given its multi-dimensional nature and a lack of well-established scales.

Purpose

This study aimed to develop a multi-dimensional scale measuring nurse-patient relationship in China.

Methods

A preliminary scale was constructed based on the existing literature and Delphi consultations with 12 nursing experts. The face validity of the scale was tested through a survey of 45 clinical nurses. This was followed by a validation study on 620 clinical nurses. Cronbach’s α, content validity and known-group validity of the scale were assessed. The study sample was further divided into two for Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), respectively, to assess the construct validity of the scale.

Results

The Nurse-Patient Relationship Scale (NPRS) containing 23 items was developed and validated, measuring five dimensions: nursing behavior, nurse understanding and respect for patient, patient misunderstanding and mistrust in nurse, communication with patient, and interaction with patient. The Cronbach’s α of the NPRS ranged from 0.725 to 0.932, indicating high internal consistency. The CFA showed excellent fitness of data into the five-factor structure: χ2/df = 2.431, GFI = 0.933, TLI = 0.923, CFI = 0.939, IFI = 0.923, RMSEA = 0.070. Good content and construct validity are demonstrated through expert consensus and psychometric tests.

Conclusion

The NPRS is a valid tool measuring nurse-patient relationship in China.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

At present, nurse-patient disputes are common, and a large number of reports focus on the relationship and conflicts between nurses and patients. Despite efforts to alleviate the strained relationship between nurses and patients, it still persists [1]. Patients are usually considered as a passive subject [2, 3]. Research points out that many patients, or most of them, are not able to engage in care for themselves through effective interactions with health workers [4]. Henderson [5] noted that professional domination over patient care causes depersonalization and, consequently, worsening of the relationship between the nurse and the patient [2, 6].

A positive nurse-patient relationship is fundamental for effective and high-quality nursing care. The importance of defining and evaluating the connotation of the nurse-patient relationship has been well-established, with a variety of theories being proposed [7,8,9]. Some scholars define it as a kind of interpersonal relationship in the process of providing and receiving nursing services. Nurses and patients learn and encourage each other, naturally forming a relationship of helping and being helped [10]. Others see it as instrumental, primarily reflecting the help nurses provide to patients [11]. From the perspective of nurses, a positive nurse-patient relationship allows them to effectively plan, provide, and evaluate nursing services. For patients, the caring consciousness, wisdom, and interpersonal skills of nurses are essential for developing and maintaining a continuous nurse-patient relationship [12]. Clinical and interpersonal skills are the two equally important pillars of patient-centered nursing practice [13].

It is critical for nurses to form a positive attitude towards patients that involves respect, trust, and understanding to enable effectively communication and delivery of the help and guidance needed by the patients [14]. Empirical evidence suggests that the tension between nurses and patients is associated with a lack of respect and understanding of nursing care from patients. Some patients or the public may hold inherent prejudices toward the status and nature of nursing work, resulting in a lack of respect and understanding for nurses [15]. This can manifest in behaviors such as not treating nurses with respect or understanding their role. In some extreme cases, patients may resort to verbal and even physical violence against nurses, which can have a negative impact on the nurse-patient relationship. As a result, the nurses may be unable to provide high-quality nursing services [16].

A reliable tool measuring nurse-patient relationship can not only help to better understand the nursing care process, but also predict patient experience and care outcomes [7,8,9]. However, the existing validated tools measuring the nurse-patient relationship have several limitations. Firstly, there is a lack of comprehensiveness, with most focusing on specific selected aspects of the nurse-patient relationship, such as trust [17, 18], social interaction [19], and care behavior [20]. Secondly, there exists ambiguity in the conceptualization of the elements measured by the existing tools: for example, “respect” can be regarded as an attribute of trust [21] or nursing behavior [20, 22]. Thirdly, the existing tools have failed to consider the special circumstances of nursing work environments in China. The hierarchical and collectivist culture in China has significant implications for how nurses work with their patients and colleagues. Nurses often become an easy target for patient complaints although system problems are usually the underlying reasons [23]. Therefore, there is a need to develop a measurement tool that can capture the complex nature of nurse-patient relationship, especially under the context of the Chinese health system [24].

This study aimed to address the gap in the literature by developing and validating a scale that measures the nurse-patient relationship comprehensively from the perspective of nurses in China, guided by existing theories and considering the existing measurement tools.

Methods

The study followed the best practice in scale development [25], which involved four steps: item generation, content verification, scale refinement, and reliability and validity assessment (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Four steps in scale development. (Note: EFA– Exploratory Factor Analysis; CFA– Confirmatory Factor Analysis; NPRS– Nurse-Patient Relationship Scale)

Full size image

The study was conducted in Heilongjiang, a province with a socioeconomic development index at the lower end range in China. In 2019, Heilongjiang had 26 nurses per 10,000 population, compared with a national average of 32 [26].

Item generation

The concept of nurse-patient relationship was defined as a therapeutic relationship in line with Peplau’s interpersonal relationship theory. Nurses play a variety of roles in helping patients, ranging from a communicator to a caregiver [12]. At the core of the relationship is trust, communication, mutual understanding, and clinical care. Halldorsdottir (2008) likened the two extremes of nurse-patient relationship as “bridge” and “wall” [27]. “Bridge” symbolizes openness of communication and connectivity felt by patients in their relationship with nurses. It represents patient-centeredness and easy access to nursing services. By contrast, “wall” symbolizes a lack of communication and indifference of nurses to patient demands, as well as mistrust between the two parties [27]. The items generated in this study covered both “wall” and “bridge” aspects in relation to trust, communication, understanding, and clinical care.

The sources of items came from a cascading decomposition of the aforementioned theoretical assumptions, a review of the existing measurement tools, and descriptive adaptation to the local health system and clinical practices. A total of 12 sub-domains were mapped into the four core functions of nurse-patient relationship through the process, with advisory support from six external experts who had complementary knowledge and expertise to the research team (Table 1).

Table 1 Conceptual framework guiding the development of the nurse-patient relationship scale
Full size table

Content verification - Delphi consultations

The Delphi method is one of the most commonly used procedures to establish content validity of a scale [28]. In this study, eligible participants of the Delphi consultations were the experts with a background of nursing research, clinical nursing, or psychology. A minimal of ten years of work experience in the relevant areas was required. The participants were recruited through a stratified convenience sampling strategy. In total, 12 experts from eight provinces participated in the Delphi consultations, covering the eastern developed, the central developing, and the western under-developed regions in China. Half of them worked in academic institutions and half in the healthcare industry.

The participants were invited to respond to the consultation questionnaire by email in December 2019. They were asked to rate the relative importance of each sub-domain on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree), and the relevance of each item to its respective sub-domain on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not relevant) to 5 (essential). Suggestions about modification, removal, or addition of items, sub-domains, and domains were also encouraged. Participation in the consultations was voluntary and verbal informed consent was obtained from each participant.

Consensus of the expert ratings was indicated by the percentage of agreement. The items/sub-domains that had a higher than 80% expert agreement and an over 4 average score were retained [29]. Two rounds of consultations were conducted. The first round resulted in some changes in the subdomains and items, although the four core functions (domains) remained unchanged. In round two, feedback of the round one results was provided, which included the rating results and the corresponding changes made such as removal, addition, and modification of items, sub-domains, and domains. Participants were asked to reconsider their ratings if needed. The 12 experts completed both rounds of consultations.

We also calculated the item content validity index (I-CVI) and the scale content validity index (S-CVI)/average: I-CVI > 0.78 and (S-CVI)/average of 0.90 or higher were deemed acceptable [30, 31].

Pilot testing

The NPRS endorsed by the experts was tested in a convenience sample of 45 nurses selected from the clinical units (mainly internal medicine, surgery, ICU, and stomatology) of a tertiary hospital in Harbin, capital of Heilongjiang province. Participants were asked to self-complete the paper questionnaire independently. Cronbach’s α coefficient of the scale reached 0.795. No further changes were made as a result of the pilot testing.

Reliability and validity assessment

Reliability and validity of the NPRS were assessed through a questionnaire survey of clinical nurses in a public tertiary hospital in Qiqihar city in Heilongjiang province. The hospital employed 1093 clinical nurses who had direct contacts with patients. From 29 to 31 December 2019, the nurses working in the clinical units were invited to participate in the survey. Participation in the survey was anonymous and voluntary. Return of the questionnaire was deemed informed consent. In total, 721 questionnaires were distributed and 708 (86.5%) were returned. After removal of the invalid returned questionnaires, 620 (86.0%) were included for data analysis, representing 56.7% of the entire nursing workforce in the participating hospital.

Ethical considerations

Ethics approval for the study protocol was granted by the research ethics committee of Harbin Medical University.

Data analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS 21.0 and AMOS 24.0. A two-sided p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. A pairwise strategy was adopted in managing missing values.

Each item of the NPRS was rated on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). The direction of item scores was aligned before a summed score was calculated for each domain and the entire scale, with a higher score indicating a more positive nurse-patient relationship.

Construct validity was tested through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The study sample was randomly divided into two mutually independent sub-samples, with 330 participants for EFA and 290 participants for CFA, respectively. The appropriateness of factor analyses was assessed using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure (KMO ≥ 0.50) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p < 0.05) [32]. The EFA extracted factors with an eigenvalue greater than 1 using principal component analysis (PCA) with maximal rotation of variance. This allowed us to identify and eliminate poorly-fitted items, including those with a low factor load (< 0.4) on all factors and those with a high load (≥ 0.4) across multiple factors [33]. The CFA then assessed the fitness of data into the adjusted scale resulting from the EFA. A good model fit was indicated by Chi-square/degree of freedom (χ2/df ratio ranging from 1 to 3), goodness-of-fit index (GFI > 0.9), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA < 0.08), a root mean square residual (RMR < 0.08), a comparative fit index (CFI > 0.9), a normalized fit index (NFI > 0.9), and Incremental Fit Index (IFI > 0.9) [34]. Convergent validity was assessed by composite reliability (CR > 0.70) [35] and average variance extracted (AVE > 0.5) from CFA [36]. Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing AVE with the Pearson correlation coefficients between domains: A good discriminant validity is indicated if the square root of AVE of each construct is greater than its correlations with the rest of the constructs [37, 38].

Reliability was assessed by Cronbach’s α for the entire NPRS and its domains using the entire sample. A greater than 0.7 Cronbach’s α coefficient indicates good internal consistency [39].

Known-group validity was tested through student t tests using the entire sample, with a hypothesis that nurse-patient relationship varies by the personal characteristics of the nurse [40, 41].

Results

Content validity

Characteristics of Delphi participants

About one third of the participants of the Delphi consultations came from Heilongjiang province and over 40% aged between 30 and 40 years. Half held a doctoral degree and had more than 20 years of work experience. Over 58% of participants held a senior professional title (Table 2).

Table 2 Characteristics of Delphi participants (n = 12)
Full size table

Results of Delphi consultations

The first round of consultations resulted in an increase of items from 25 to 27: five new items were suggested while three were removed (Table 3). The three items that were suggested by some experts for removal all had low levels of expert agreement. Wording changes were also suggested by the experts for nine items to reduce ambiguity and improve clarity (Supplementary Table 1). The four core functions (domains) remained unchanged.

Table 3 Results of expert consultations (n = 12)
Full size table

The first round of Delphi consultations already achieved an I-CVI of 0.83 (22/25) and an (S-CVI)/average of 0.98, exceeding the recommended value.

The second round of consultations led to language modification of two items. One item was removed because it failed to reach agreement among the experts in both rounds of consultations (Table 2). This resulted in a final version of the NPRS, containing 26 items, measuring nurse patient understanding and respect (8 items), nurse-patient trust (4 items), nurse-patient communication (8 items), and nurse’s help and guidance to patients (6 items). The second round of Delphi consultations already achieved an I-CVI of 0.83 (22/26) and an (S-CVI)/average of 0.99, exceeding the recommended value.

Construct validity

Characteristics of survey participants

Of the 620 clinical nurses surveyed, 88.1% were female and 46.0% aged between 26 and 35 years. Most were married (53.2%), obtained a university degree (59.0%), and worked in internal medicine (55.6%). Almost half (49.0%) had over five years of work experience and 70.6% held an intermediate or senior professional title. The two sub-divided samples had slightly different characteristics of study participants (Table 4).

Table 4 Sociodemographic characteristics of study participants
Full size table

Structural adjustment of the scale

The KMO (0.903) and Bartlett test of sphericity (p < 0.001) indicated appropriateness of the subsample (n = 330) for EFA. The EFA extracted five factors: nursing behavior; nurse understanding and respect for patient; patient misunderstanding and mistrust; communication with patient; and interaction with patient. The five factors explained 68.06% of the total variance. Three items (item N7, N9, N16) with low factor loadings or cross loadings were removed, resulting in a 23-item NPRS (Table 5). The complete NPRS scale is shown in supplementary Table S3.

Table 5 Results of exploratory factor analysis (n = 330)
Full size table

Construct validity

The KMO (0.902) and Bartlett test of sphericity (p < 0.001) indicated appropriateness of the subsample (n = 290) for CFA. Excellent fitness of data into the five-factor structure in line with the EFA was found: χ2/df = 2.431, GFI = 0.933, TLI = 0.923, CFI = 0.939, IFI = 0.923, and RMSEA = 0.070. The vast majority of items had a factor loading greater than 0.70 on its respective domain (Supplementary Table S2).

Convergent and discriminatory validity

Convergent validity of the scale was confirmed by the CFA (n = 290), as indicated by the greater than 0.7 CR and greater than 0.5 AVE (Table 6).

The five domains were moderately correlated. The square root of the AVE value of each domain generated from the CFA (n = 290) was much greater than its correlation coefficients with other domains (Table 6), indicating good discriminant validity between dimensions.

Table 6 Composite reliability and discriminant validity of the scale (N = 290)
Full size table

Cronbach’s α

High levels of internal consistency were found for the entire scale and its five domains, as indicated by the higher than 0.7 Cronbach’α coefficients (Table 7).

Table 7 Cronbach’s α coefficients of the scale (n = 620)
Full size table

Known group validity

There were statistically significant differences in the NPRS scores by gender and working experience (Table 8). Male nurses had lower scores (indicating poorer relationship) in two domains: patient misunderstanding and mistrust in nurse, and communication with patients, compared to female nurses (p < 0.01). Longer work experience was associated with higher scores (indicating better relationship) in two domains: nurse understanding and respect for patients, and interaction with patients (p < 0.05). Patient complaint was associated with a lower score (indicating poorer relationship) in one domain (patient misunderstanding and mistrust in nurse) despite a lack of significance in the difference of overall NPRS scores.

Table 8 Scale scores of participants with different characteristics (n = 620)
Full size table

Discussion and conclusions

Discussion

The current research represents an attempt to provide a clear conceptualization and a reliable and valid scale measuring the comprehensive nurse-patient relationship in China. This research closely followed the best practice in scale development, involving a series studies covering the generation of dimensions and initial items, verification of the content, refinement of the scale, and reliability and validity testing of the scale. Previous studies have endeavored to assess the nurse-patient relationship through specific theories [18, 46, 47]. The nurse-patient relationship is indeed multifaceted. From a practical standpoint, no single theory can entirely encapsulate the nature of the nurse-patient relationship. The nurse-patient relationship scale developed in this current study offers a comprehensive tool by incorporating and refining dimensions and items derived from previous studies.

The results showed that the NPRS developed by our research has good reliability and validity. It supports a multi-dimensional construct, with Cronbach’s alpha of the scale and its five domains well exceeding the acceptable value of 0.7. Good content and construct validity are demonstrated through expert consensus and psychometric tests.

The NPRS has captured all of the essential elements of nurse-patient relationship as measured by the existing measurement tools, including trust [18, 48], communication and interaction [46, 49,50,51], and respect and humanistic care [47]. It covers both positive and negative behavioral reflections of the nurse-patient relationship, and puts nursing responsiveness, care process, and care outcomes at the core of the relationship. Mutual understanding, trust and respect provide the foundation for a positive nurse-patient relationship [27], which enables positive behaviors and interactions between the two to ensure good care outcomes.

The NPRS can help managers and policymakers to better respond to the call for patient-centered care. Increasing tensions in the relationship between nurses and patients due to various reasons have been observed worldwide [52], prompting calls for improving work and cultural environments. In this current study, we found that patient complaints are associated with poorer nurse-patient relationship, characterized by patient misunderstanding and distrust in nurses. Indeed, experiencing patient complaints reduces job satisfaction and the quality of working life of nurses [53]. Nurses facilitate care through frequent and direct contact with patients and their families in almost all healthcare settings, particularly in hospitals [54]. Patient demands and expectations have never been so high due to the rapid technological advancement and increased affordability of care [55]. What follows is the increase in the workload and the high pressure imposed on nurses [56]. Constant and chronic occupational stress produce burnout, a prominent characteristic of nursing work [57]. Study shows that the inverse relationship between physician burnout and patient safety affects nurse-patient relationship [58]. On the other hand, patients may take improved care outcomes for granted [59]. Therefore, it is important to use a tool, such as the NPRS, to help nurses and their managers to identify key domains in the nurse-patient relationship for improvement.

Our findings have some policy implications on the current health system reform in China. We found that the male nurses have worse relationship with patients than their female counterparts. This may reflect the structural inequality in gender division of work: Female nurses take most of the care tasks [60]. Female nurses may be more sensitive than their male counterparts, have stronger empathy, communication and caring characteristics, and pay more attention to emotional communication [61]. A study on the humanistic care of male nurses showed that male nurses expressed humanistic care differently from female nurses. Female nurses were more inclined to use their unique mother-like image to care for patients, while male nurses mostly used professional behaviors to care for patients [62]. There is a need to address the gender inequality and strengthen the communication competency of male nurses.

In the current study, we found that longer work experience is associated with a better nurse-patient relationship, in terms of nurse understanding and respect for patient and interaction with patient. Benner argues that rich life experience and increased situation awareness can help nurses to better manage nurse-patient relationship [63]. Empirical evidence shows that nursing students can obtain both professional and personal growth, such as a rise in confidence and self-esteem, through accumulated experience in interactions with patients [64]. However, professional and managerial support is equally, if not more, important to enable nurses to excel in managing nurse-patient relationship. As indicated in the findings of this current study, longer work experience does not appear to improve nurse behavior, patient misunderstanding and mistrust in nurse, and communication with patient.

Limitation

The current study has some limitations. The study sample was drawn from one hospital. Future studies should expand participants to a more representative sample. It is also important to examine the tool from patient perspective. The NPRS was developed under the context of the Chinese health system. Cross-cultural adaptation is needed should it be used in different health system settings.

Conclusion

The 23-item NPRS is a valid tool measuring the comprehensive relationship between nurses and patients under the context of the Chinese health system. It measures five domains: nursing behavior, nurse understanding and respect for patient, patient misunderstanding and mistrust in nurse, communication with patient, and interaction with patient. The NPRS presents an opportunity for nurses and their managers to reflect and identify key domains in nurse-patient relationship for improvement. Healthcare practitioners and policymakers can utilize this tool to pinpoint crucial areas for enhancing the development of a trusting and productive nurse-patient relationship.

Data availability

The data sets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Ferri P, Silvestri M, Artoni C, et al. Workplace violence in different settings and among various health professionals in an Italian general hospital: a cross-sectional study[J]. Psychol Res Behav Manage. 2016;9:263–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cahill J. Patient participation–a review of the literature[J]. J Clin Nurs. 1998;7(2):119–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Truglio-Londrigan M. The patient experience with Shared decision making: a qualitative descriptive study[J]. J Infus Nurs. 2015;38(6):407–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Grffith R, Tengnah C. Shared decision-making: nurses must respect autonomy over paternalism[J]. Br J Community Nurs. 2013;18(6):303–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Henderson S. Power imbalance between nurses and patients: a potential inhibitor of partnership in care[J]. J Clin Nurs. 2003;12(4):501–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Malaquin-Pavan E. [Is nursing care an intrusion? [J]. Soins, 2015(794):21.

  7. Feo R, Rasmussen P, Wiechula R, et al. Developing effective and caring nurse-patient relationships[J]. Nurs Standard (Royal Coll Nurs (Great Britain): 1987). 2017;31(28):54–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hagerty BM, Patusky KL. Reconceptualizing the nurse-patient relationship[J]. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2003;35(2):145–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Molina-Mula J, Gallo-Estrada J. Impact of nurse-patient relationship on quality of care and patient autonomy in Decision-Making[J]. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2020,17(3).

  10. Genoveva GG. The nurse-patient relationship as a Caring Relationship[J]. Nurs Sci Q, 2009,22(2).

  11. Book Review: Nursing Theorists and Their Work (4th ed.) Edited by Ann Marriner Tomey and Martha Raile Alligood (St. Louis, MO: C. V. Mosby. 1998 Reviewed by Burns Nancy, RN; PhD; FAAN Professor, The University of Texas at Arlington[Z]. United States: 1999;12:263.

  12. Interpersonal relations in nursing[J].

  13. Feo R, Rasmussen P, Wiechula R, et al. Developing effective and caring nurse-patient relationships[J]. Nurs Stand. 2017;31(28):54–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dithole KS, Thupayagale-Tshweneagae G, Akpor OA, et al. Communication skills intervention: promoting effective communication between nurses and mechanically ventilated patients[J]. BMC Nurs. 2017;16(1):74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Zhao S, Xie F, Wang J, et al. Prevalence of workplace violence against Chinese nurses and its association with mental health: a cross-sectional survey[J]. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2018;32(2):242–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bridges J, Nicholson C, Maben J, et al. Capacity for care: meta-ethnography of acute care nurses’ experiences of the nurse-patient relationship[J]. J Adv Nurs. 2013;69(4):760–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Radwin LE, Cabral HJ. Trust in nurses Scale: construct validity and internal reliability evaluation[J]. J Adv Nurs. 2010;66(3):683–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ozaras G, Abaan S. Investigation of the trust status of the nurse-patient relationship[J]. Nurs Ethics. 2018;25(5):628–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rask M, Malm D, Kristofferzon ML, et al. Validity and reliability of a Swedish version of the relationship assessment scale (RAS): a pilot study[J]. Can J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2010;20(1):16–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wu Y, Larrabee JH, Putman HP. Caring behaviors inventory: a reduction of the 42-Item instrument[J]. Nurs Res. 2006;55(1):18–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhao Ling W, Rong ZHU, Chenhui. Revision of nurse-patient relationship trust scale and test of reliability and validity [J]. J Nurs Sci. 2018;33(01):56–8.

    Google Scholar 

  22. He Ting G, Yingying L, Xiaohong, et al. Sinicization and validity test of nursing behavior scale [J]. Shanghai Nurs. 2021;21(01):6–9.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Liu C, Bartram T, Leggat SG. Link of patient care outcome to occupational differences in response to human resource management: a cross-sectional comparative study on hospital doctors and nurses in China[J]. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2020,17(12).

  24. Feo R, Conroy T, Wiechula R, et al. Instruments measuring behavioural aspects of the nurse–patient relationship: a scoping review[J]. J Clin Nurs. 2019;29(11–12):1808–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, et al. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a Primer[J]. Front Public Health. 2018;6:149.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. National Bureau of Statistics. https://data.stats.gov.cn/easyquery.htm?cn=E0103&zb=A0O02&reg=230000&sj=2019.

  27. Halldorsdottir S. The dynamics of the nurse-patient relationship: introduction of a synthesized theory from the patient’s perspective[J]. Scand J Caring Sci. 2008;22(4):643–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique[J]. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32(4):1008–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bing-Jonsson PC, Bjork IT, Hofoss D, et al. Competence in advanced older people nursing: development of ‘nursing older people–competence evaluation tool‘[J]. Int J Older People Nurs. 2015;10(1):59–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Timmins F. Nursing Research Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice, Polit DF, Tatano Beck C. Lippincott Williams & Williams, London, ISBN: 978-1-60547-708-4 - scienceD[J]. Nurse Education in Practice. 2012;13(6).

  31. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations[J]. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kang H. [A guide on the use of factor analysis in the assessment of construct validity[J]. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2013;43(5):587–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. WeiLong Z, Shaozhuang M, Li G. Development and validation of doctor-patient relationship scale in China[J]. Health Qual Manage. 2018;25(06):57–61.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Structural Model Evaluation and Modification. An Inverted Estimation Approach[J].

  35. Wynne WC, Barbara LM, Peter RN. A partial least squares Latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study[J]. Inform Syst Res, 2003,14(2).

  36. Richard PB. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: a comment[J]. J Mark Res. 1981;18(3).

  37. Fuller CM, Simmering MJ, Atinc G, et al. Common methods variance detection in business research[J]. J Bus Res. 2016;69(8):3192–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Li C, Jiang Y. Measurement model improvement of organizational memory: the development and validation of local scaling[J]. Res Financial Economic Issues, 2012(10):17–24.

  39. Multivariate. Date Analysis[M].

  40. Moriconi S, Balducci PM, Tortorella A. Aggressive behavior: nurse-patient relationship in mental health setting[J]. Psychiatr Danub. 2020;32(Suppl 1):207–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Boge LA, Dos SC, Moreno-Walton LA, et al. The relationship between physician/nurse gender and patients’ correct identification of health care professional roles in the emergency department[J]. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2019;28(7):961–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hildegard P. Interpersonal Relation of Nursing[J]. 1952.

  43. Cronin SN, Harrison B. Importance of nurse caring behaviour as perceived by patients after myocardial infarction[J]. Heart Lung J Acute Crit Care. 1988;17(4):374–80.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. 岡谷恵子. 看護婦-患者関係における信頼を測定する質問紙の開発-信頼性 妥当性の検定[J]. 1994 年度聖路加看護大学大学院博士論文, 1994.[Z].

  45. Boscart VM, Pringle D, Peter E, et al. Development and psychometric testing of the humanistic nurse-patient scale[J]. Can J Aging / La Revue Canadienne Du Vieillissement. 2016;35(01):1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Dithole KS, Thupayagale-Tshweneagae G, Akpor OA, et al. Communication skills intervention: promoting effective communication between nurses and mechanically ventilated patients[J]. BMC Nurs. 2017;16:74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Boscart VM, Pringle D, Peter E, et al. Development and psychometric testing of the humanistic nurse-patient scale[J]. Can J Aging. 2016;35(1):1–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Burge DM. Relationship between patient trust of nursing staff, postoperative pain, and discharge functional outcomes following a total knee arthroplasty[J]. Orthop Nurs. 2009;28(6):295–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Fakhr-Movahedi A, Rahnavard Z, Salsali M, et al. Exploring nurse’s communicative role in nurse-patient relations: a qualitative study[J]. J Caring Sci. 2016;5(4):267–76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. McGilton KS, Sorin-Peters R, Sidani S, et al. Patient-centred communication intervention study to evaluate nurse-patient interactions in complex continuing care[J]. BMC Geriatr. 2012;12:61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Strauss B. The patient perception of the nurse-patient relationship when nurses utilize an electronic health record within a hospital setting[J]. Comput Inf Nurs. 2013;31(12):596–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Keykaleh MS, Safarpour H, Yousefian S, et al. The relationship between Nurse’s job stress and patient safety[J]. Open Access Macedonian J Med Sci. 2018;6(11):2228–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Teymourzadeh E, Rashidian A, Arab M, et al. Nurses exposure to workplace violence in a large teaching hospital in Iran[J]. Int J Health Policy Manage. 2014;3(6):301–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Kieft RA, de Brouwer BB, Francke AL, et al. How nurses and their work environment affect patient experiences of the quality of care: a qualitative study[J]. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:249.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. The power in. the nurse-patient relationship: integrative review[J].

  56. Allande-Cussó R, Macías-Seda J, Porcel-Gálvez AM. Transcultural adaptation into Spanish of the caring nurse-patient interactions for assessing nurse-patient relationship competence[J]. Enfermería Clínica (English Edition). 2020;30(1):42–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Maslach C, Leiter MP. The truth about burnout[M]. The Truth About Burnout; 1997.

  58. Garcia CL, Abreu LC, Ramos J et al. Influence of burnout on patient safety: systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Med (Kaunas). 2019;55(9).

  59. Al-Awamreh K, Suliman M. Patients’ satisfaction with the quality of nursing care in thalassemia units[J]. Appl Nurs Res. 2019;47:46–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Gender differences in. sleeping hours and recovery experience among psychiatric nurses in Japan[J].

  61. Zhou Xiaomei L. Investigation and analysis of clinical nurses’ nursing care behavior and patients’ caring perception [J]. Chin J Practical Nurs. 2019;35(36):2858–63.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Zhang, Wen. Cheng Xiangwei. A qualitative study on the practice perception of humanistic care in male nurses [J]. J Nurs Sci. 2017;32(08):63–6.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Benner PE. From novice to expert: excellence and power in clinical nursing practice[M]. From novice to expert: excellence and power in clinical nursing practice, 1984.

  64. Suikkala A, Leino-Kilpi H. Nursing student-patient relationship: experiences of students and patients[J]. Nurse Educ Today. 2005;25(5):344–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71673073 and 71974049) for providing funding.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yajie Feng, Xinru Liu and Zhaoyue Liu are joint first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Health Administration, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China

    Yajie Feng, Siyi Tao, Chen Wang, Huanyu Zhang, Xinru Liu, Zhaoyue Liu, Wei Liu, Juan Zhao, Dandan Zou, Zhixin Liu, Junping Liu, Nan Wang, Lin Wu, Qunhong Wu, Yanhua Hao & Libo Liang

  2. Qiqihar Medical College, Qiqihar, China

    Weilan Xu

  3. Department of Public Health, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, 3086, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Chaojie Liu

  4. Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Peking University, 100191, Beijing, China

    Zhixin Liu

  5. Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University (Army Medical University, 400000, Chongqing, China

    Juan Zhao

  6. Xinqiao Hospital, Third Military Medical University (Army Medical University, 400037, Chongqing, China

    Chen Wang

  7. Jin Shan Hospital of Fudan University, 201508, Shanghai, China

    Dandan Zou

  8. Anhui Medical University, No.1166, Wangjiang West Road, Shushan District, Hefei, Anhui, China

    Siyi Tao

Authors
  1. Yajie Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chaojie Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Siyi Tao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chen Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Huanyu Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xinru Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Zhaoyue Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Wei Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Juan Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Dandan Zou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Zhixin Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Junping Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Nan Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Lin Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Qunhong Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Yanhua Hao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Weilan Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Libo Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

F.Y.J. and T.S.Y. and W.C and L.W. and Z.H.Y and L.X.R and Z.J and Z.D.D and L.Z.X and L.J.P and W.N and W.L. and L.Z.Y. conceptualized the study. F.Y.J and L.X.R and T.S.Y and W.C. and L.L.B. contributed to reagents methodology. F.Y.J and T.S.Y and W.C and L.W and Z.H.Y and L.X.R and Z.J and Z.D.D. L.Z.X. and L.J.P. supervised data collection. F.Y.J and L.L.B and W.Q.H. and X.W.L. directed data analysis. F.Y.J and L.L.B and L.C.J and H.Y.H. and X.W.L. interpreted the findings. F.Y.J. drafted the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript and approved the final version.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yanhua Hao, Weilan Xu or Libo Liang.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Ethical Review Board at the Harbin Medical University. The data collection occurred between October and December 2019. Abiding by the research ethical conduct, informed consent was obtained from all subjects who participated in this study. Research is carried out in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Feng, Y., Liu, C., Tao, S. et al. Developing and validating the nurse-patient relationship scale (NPRS) in China. BMC Nurs 23, 255 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-01941-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-01941-w

Keywords

BMC Nursing

ISSN: 1472-6955

Contact us