» Articles » PMID: 26920738

Validity, Reliability and Responsiveness to Change of the Italian Palliative Care Outcome Scale: a Multicenter Study of Advanced Cancer Patients

Abstract

Background: There is an increasing requirement to assess outcomes, but few measures have been tested for advanced medical illness. We aimed to test the validity, reliability and responsiveness of the Palliative care Outcome Scale (POS), and to analyse predictors of change after the transition to palliative care.

Methods: Phase 1: multicentre, mixed method study comprising cognitive and qualitative interviews with patients and staff, cultural refinement and adaption. Phase 2: consecutive cancer patients on admission to 8 inpatient hospices and 7 home-based teams were asked to complete the POS, the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and the FACIT-Sp (T0), to assess internal consistency, convergent and divergent validity. After 6 days (T1) patients and staff completed the POS to assess responsiveness to change (T1-T0), and agreement between self-assessed POS and POS completed by the staff. Finally, we asked hospices an assessment 24-48 h after T1 to assess its reliability (test re-test analysis).

Results: Phase I: 209 completed POS questionnaires and 29 cognitive interviews were assessed, revisions made and one item substituted. Phase II: 295 consecutive patients admitted to 15 PCTs were approached, 175 (59.3 %) were eligible, and 150 (85.7 %) consented. Consent was limited by the severity of illness in 40 % patients. We found good convergent validity, with strong and moderate correlations (r ranged 0.5-0.8) between similar items from the POS, the QLQ-C15-PAL and the FACIT-Sp. As hypothesised, the physical function subscale of QLQ-C15-PAL was not correlated with any POS item (r ranged -0.16-0.02). We found acceptable to good test re-test reliability in both versions for 6 items. We found significant clinical improvements during the first week of palliative care in 7/10 items assessed-pain, other symptoms, patient and family anxiety, information, feeling at peace and wasted time.

Conclusions: Both the patient self-assessed and professional POS versions are valid and with an acceptable internal consistency. POS detected significant clinical improvements during palliative care, at a time when patients are usually expected to deteriorate. These results suggest that there is room for substantial improvement in the management of patients with advanced disease, across all key domains-symptoms, psychological, information, social and spiritual.

Citing Articles

Validity and reliability of the integrated palliative care outcome scale (IPOS) in Korea: a multicenter study of terminally ill cancer patients.

Park S, Park Y, Han M, Kim S, Hwang I, Woo G BMC Palliat Care. 2024; 23(1):298.

PMID: 39716151 PMC: 11665220. DOI: 10.1186/s12904-024-01630-0.


Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of Palliative Care Outcome Scale (POS) in Adult Patients With Cancer.

Nir M, Rassouli M, Ebadi A, Moosavi S, Pakseresht M, Hasan Shiri F Front Psychol. 2022; 13:858684.

PMID: 35602695 PMC: 9122042. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.858684.


mRNA-COVID19 Vaccination Can Be Considered Safe and Tolerable for Frail Patients.

Lupo-Stanghellini M, Di Cosimo S, Costantini M, Monti S, Mantegazza R, Mantovani A Front Oncol. 2022; 12:855723.

PMID: 35371993 PMC: 8969577. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.855723.


Caring Advanced Cancer Patients at Home During COVID-19 Outbreak: Burnout and Psychological Morbidity Among Palliative Care Professionals in Italy.

Varani S, Ostan R, Franchini L, Ercolani G, Pannuti R, Biasco G J Pain Symptom Manage. 2020; 61(2):e4-e12.

PMID: 33249082 PMC: 7691143. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.11.026.


Introducing the trajectory Touchpoint technique: a systematic methodology for capturing the service experiences of palliative care patients and their families.

Sudbury-Riley L, Hunter-Jones P, Al-Abdin A BMC Palliat Care. 2020; 19(1):104.

PMID: 32650768 PMC: 7353705. DOI: 10.1186/s12904-020-00612-2.


References
1.
Sleeman K, Davies J, Verne J, Gao W, Higginson I . The changing demographics of inpatient hospice death: Population-based cross-sectional study in England, 1993-2012. Palliat Med. 2015; 30(1):45-53. PMC: 4681161. DOI: 10.1177/0269216315585064. View

2.
Peterman A, Fitchett G, Brady M, Hernandez L, Cella D . Measuring spiritual well-being in people with cancer: the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy--Spiritual Well-being Scale (FACIT-Sp). Ann Behav Med. 2002; 24(1):49-58. DOI: 10.1207/S15324796ABM2401_06. View

3.
Gomes B, Higginson I . Where people die (1974--2030): past trends, future projections and implications for care. Palliat Med. 2008; 22(1):33-41. DOI: 10.1177/0269216307084606. View

4.
Higginson I, Bausewein C, Reilly C, Gao W, Gysels M, Dzingina M . An integrated palliative and respiratory care service for patients with advanced disease and refractory breathlessness: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2014; 2(12):979-87. DOI: 10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70226-7. View

5.
Groenvold M, Petersen M, Aaronson N, Arraras J, Blazeby J, Bottomley A . The development of the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL: a shortened questionnaire for cancer patients in palliative care. Eur J Cancer. 2005; 42(1):55-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2005.06.022. View