Effects of a Perma-h Model Mobile-based Rehabilitation Support Program on Hope, Self-efficacy, Perceived Social Support and Rehabilitation Outcomes in Post- Tracheostomy Oral Cancer Patients

The Perceived Social Support Scale measures individuals' subjective perception of social support. Widely used in psychology, medicine, and sociology, it demonstrates strong reliability and validity. Developed by Zimet et al. (1990) and revised by Jiang (2001) for cultural adaptation, the Chinese version replaced the "other support" dimension with "support from leaders, relatives, and colleagues," yielding a Cronbach's α of 0.92. The scale includes three dimensions-family support, friend support, and support from leaders, relatives, and colleagues-each comprising four items. Responses are rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = "strongly disagree" to 7 = "strongly agree"), yielding a total score of 12-84. Scores of 12-36, 37-60, and 61-84 indicate low, moderate, and high PSS, respectively.

The General Self-Efficacy Scale, developed by Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1995), originally comprised 20 items and was later refined to 10. It has been translated into more than 20 languages for global use. The Chinese version, translated and validated by Wang et al. (2001), measures individuals' confidence in managing challenges. Reported Cronbach's α coefficients for this version range from 0.87 to 0.96, indicating strong reliability and validity. Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert scale ("not at all true," "somewhat true," "mostly true," "completely true"), with scores ranging from 1 to 4. The total score ranges from 10 to 40, with higher scores reflecting stronger perceived self-efficacy. Based on the total score, self-efficacy can be categorized into three levels: scores below 20 indicate low self-efficacy, scores between 20 and 30 indicate moderate self-efficacy, and scores above 30 indicate high self-efficacy.

The Rehabilitation Willingness Questionnaire, developed by Liu et al. (2011) based on the TPB, assesses stroke patients' willingness to engage in rehabilitation. The instrument shows good reliability, with Cronbach's α = 0.79. It comprises three dimensions: behavioral attitude (3 items), subjective norms (4 items), and perceived behavioral control (5 items). Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale, producing total scores of 12-60, where higher scores indicate stronger rehabilitation willingness. Scores are categorized as low (12-27), moderate (28-43), and high (44-60).

Swallowing function was assessed using the water swallowing test proposed by Toshio Kubota, which provides clear grading criteria and is simple to administer. During the assessment, patients are seated and instructed to drink 30 mL of warm water, while swallowing frequency and the presence of coughing are observed. Swallowing performance is graded as follows: 1 point-swallowing the water in a single attempt; 2 points-swallowing the water in two or more attempts without coughing; 3 points-swallowing the water in a single attempt with coughing; 4 points-swallowing the water in two or more attempts with coughing; and 5 points-unable to swallow all the water with frequent coughing. Scores of 1-2 indicate normal swallowing function, whereas scores of 3-5 indicate dysphagia.

Speech intelligibility was assessed using the Hofstetter Speech Intelligibility Test, which evaluates the extent to which a patient's speech can be understood by unfamiliar listeners.The assessment was conducted by trained clinicians during routine clinical evaluation, and the resulting scores were extracted from medical records for analysis. Speech intelligibility (%)

= (Number of words/syllables correctly understood by listeners)/ (Total number of words/ syllables presented). For example, if listeners correctly understand 42 out of 50 words, the speech intelligibility score is 84%, a comprehension level of 90% - 100% indicates that the speech is basically completely understandable, 75% - 89% represents a slight decline, 50% - 74% indicates a moderate decline, 25% - 49% represents a severe decline, and anything below 25% suggests extremely severe impairment in speech comprehension.

During the early phase of rehabilitation, increasing session frequency is associated with substantial gains in neuroplasticity and motor function recovery. However, once the cumulative number of sessions approaches approximately 30, therapeutic effects tend to plateau. Although additional sessions may yield modest improvements, marginal benefits diminish, and excessive rehabilitation can lead to fatigue, reduced adherence, and increased financial burden.Accordingly, this study set 30 rehabilitation sessions as the recommended total intervention dose and calculated rehabilitation adherence using the formula: (actual number of completed rehabilitation sessions / 30) × 100%. Based on adherence thresholds commonly applied in pharmacological and rehabilitation research, adherence is categorized as high (≥80% of the prescribed dose, ≥24 sessions), moderate (50%-79%, 15-23 sessions), or low (<50%, ≤14 sessions).