Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the clinical validation of the nursing diagnosis (ND) of \"spiritual distress (00066)\" and the sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio, and predictive value in parents of children with chronic diseases.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted using the clinical diagnostic validity method proposed by Fehring. The data were collected through structured interviews and using a researcher-made list that included 5 parts of demographic information, parents\' opinions about spiritual distress, the researcher\'s diagnosis, 74 defining characteristics (DCs) of the ND of spiritual distress, and the Spiritual Well-being Questionnaire. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics as well as sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio, and predictive value.
RESULTS: The prevalence of diagnosis was 70% in a sample of 120 parents. Out of the 74 DCs, 39 criteria were validated. Questioning meaning of illness and suffering had the highest sensitivity (98.8%), the highest negative predictive value (88.88%), and the lowest negative likelihood ratio (0.05%). Expressing the lack of meaning in life demonstrated the highest specificity (97.22%), the highest positive predictive value (98.33%), and the highest positive likelihood ratio (25.26%).
CONCLUSIONS: Parents who search for meaning of illness and suffering related to a lack of meaning in life are in spiritual distress. The ND was validated.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings can empower clinical nurses to confidently assess and identify patients experiencing spiritual distress, bridging the gaps caused by the absence of standardized tools for assessing spiritual distress in the inpatient setting.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted using the clinical diagnostic validity method proposed by Fehring. The data were collected through structured interviews and using a researcher-made list that included 5 parts of demographic information, parents\' opinions about spiritual distress, the researcher\'s diagnosis, 74 defining characteristics (DCs) of the ND of spiritual distress, and the Spiritual Well-being Questionnaire. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics as well as sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio, and predictive value.
RESULTS: The prevalence of diagnosis was 70% in a sample of 120 parents. Out of the 74 DCs, 39 criteria were validated. Questioning meaning of illness and suffering had the highest sensitivity (98.8%), the highest negative predictive value (88.88%), and the lowest negative likelihood ratio (0.05%). Expressing the lack of meaning in life demonstrated the highest specificity (97.22%), the highest positive predictive value (98.33%), and the highest positive likelihood ratio (25.26%).
CONCLUSIONS: Parents who search for meaning of illness and suffering related to a lack of meaning in life are in spiritual distress. The ND was validated.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings can empower clinical nurses to confidently assess and identify patients experiencing spiritual distress, bridging the gaps caused by the absence of standardized tools for assessing spiritual distress in the inpatient setting.
摘要：
目的：本研究旨在确定“精神困扰（00066）”护理诊断（ND）的临床验证及其敏感性，特异性，似然比，对慢性病患儿父母的预测价值。
方法：本横断面研究使用Fehring提出的临床诊断有效性方法进行。数据是通过结构化访谈收集的，并使用研究人员制作的清单，其中包括5部分的人口统计信息，父母对精神困扰的看法，研究人员的诊断，74定义精神痛苦的ND的特征(DC)，和精神幸福问卷。数据采用描述性统计和敏感性进行分析，特异性，似然比，和预测价值。
结果：在120名父母的样本中，诊断的患病率为70%。在74个DC中，验证了39项标准。质疑疾病和痛苦的含义具有最高的敏感性（98.8％），阴性预测值最高(88.88%)，和最低的负似然比（0.05％）。表达生活中缺乏意义表现出最高的特异性(97.22%)，阳性预测值最高(98.33%)，正似然比最高(25.26%)。
结论：寻找与生活中缺乏意义有关的疾病和痛苦的意义的父母处于精神困境中。验证了ND。
结论：这些发现可以使临床护士能够自信地评估和识别经历精神困扰的患者，弥合因缺乏评估住院患者精神困扰的标准化工具而造成的差距。
方法：本横断面研究使用Fehring提出的临床诊断有效性方法进行。数据是通过结构化访谈收集的，并使用研究人员制作的清单，其中包括5部分的人口统计信息，父母对精神困扰的看法，研究人员的诊断，74定义精神痛苦的ND的特征(DC)，和精神幸福问卷。数据采用描述性统计和敏感性进行分析，特异性，似然比，和预测价值。
结果：在120名父母的样本中，诊断的患病率为70%。在74个DC中，验证了39项标准。质疑疾病和痛苦的含义具有最高的敏感性（98.8％），阴性预测值最高(88.88%)，和最低的负似然比（0.05％）。表达生活中缺乏意义表现出最高的特异性(97.22%)，阳性预测值最高(98.33%)，正似然比最高(25.26%)。
结论：寻找与生活中缺乏意义有关的疾病和痛苦的意义的父母处于精神困境中。验证了ND。
结论：这些发现可以使临床护士能够自信地评估和识别经历精神困扰的患者，弥合因缺乏评估住院患者精神困扰的标准化工具而造成的差距。
