Objective:

To develop a quality evaluation scale for ERAS health education in gynecologic malignancies and examine its reliability and validity.

Approach:

• Development Methodology: Guided by the Donabedian structure-process-outcome model, an initial item pool was established through literature review and semi-structured interviews, followed by two rounds of Delphi consultation with 18 experts.
• Implementation and Evaluation Protocol: A supporting protocol was developed specifying delivery agents, timing, formats, evaluation methods, and feedback-improvement mechanisms.
• Testing: Reliability and validity testing involved 116 perioperative patients with gynecologic malignancies.

Key Findings:

• Thefinalscalecomprises4primarydimensions,22secondaryindicators,and36tertiaryitems,correspondingtoadmission,preoperative,postoperative,anddischargeeducationstages,withatotalscoreof100.ResponseratesforbothDelphiroundswere100%,withauthoritycoefficients(Cr)of0.897–0.914.I-CVIrangedfrom0.833to1.000andS-CVI/Avewas0.946.KMOwas0.821;fourfactorswereextractedwithacumulativevarianceof51.60%.Cronbach’sαforthetotalscalewas0.890,andtest-retestICCwas0.925.Clinicalapplicationshowedatotalscoreof86.7±8.4.Dischargeeducationemergedastheweakestdomain(scoringrate84.3%),withallfouritemsscoring<70%concentratedinthisdimension:psychologicalcounselingandpeersupport(60.0%),sexualliferesumptionguidance(63.0%),homemedicationguidance(65.9%),andhomeactivity/nutrition/woundcare(68.1%).

Interpretation:

The scale demonstrates good reliability and validity.

Limitations:

• The study did not collect compliance data on clinical measures.
• The association between education quality and core ERAS outcomes was not analyzed.

Conclusion:

The tool complements ERAS compliance audits and enables identification of weak links for continuous quality improvement.