Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26920738›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2016

Validity, reliability and responsiveness to change of the Italian palliative care outcome scale: a multicenter study of advanced cancer patients.

Massimo Costantini, Elisa Rabitti, Monica Beccaro, Flavio Fusco, Carlo Peruselli, Pietro La Ciura, Alessandro Valle, Cinzia Suriani, Maria Alejandra Berardi, Danila Valenti and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Assessment and monitoring by Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale: an observational study on cancer patients at home.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Observational
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Massimo CostantiniPalliative Care Unit, Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova-IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy. costantini.massimo@asmn.re.it.
Elisa RabittiPalliative Care Unit, Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova-IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Monica BeccaroAcademy of Sciences of Palliative Medicine, Bentivoglio, Bologna, Italy.
Flavio FuscoPalliative Care Unit, ASL3 Genovese, Genoa, Italy.
Carlo PeruselliPalliative Care Unit, Biella Hospital, Biella, Italy.
Pietro La CiuraPalliative Care Unit, ASL CN1, Cuneo, Italy.
Alessandro ValleFARO Foundation, Turin, Italy.
Cinzia SurianiPalliative Care, Distretto Vallagarina, Trento, Italy.
Maria Alejandra BerardiPsycho-Oncology Unit, Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori (IRST) IRCCS, Meldola, Italy.
Danila ValentiPalliative Care Network, AUSL, Bologna, Italy.
Felicita MossoPalliative Care Unit, ASL TO 4, Turin, Italy.
Piero MorinoConvento delle Oblate Hospice, Azienda Sanitaria, Florence, Italy.
Giovanni ZaninettaHospice Domus Salutis, Fondazione Teresa Camplani, Brescia, Italy.
Giorgio TubereHospice ASL 1 Imperiese, Sanremo, Italy.
Massimo PiazzaS. Felice a Ema Hospice, Azienda Sanitaria, Florence, Italy.
Michele SofiaPalliative Care Unit, Garbagnate, Italy.
Silvia Di LeoPsycho-Oncology Unit, Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova-IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Irene J HigginsonDepartment of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, Cicely Saunders Institute, King's College London, London, UK.
Ospedale Santa Maria · ITAzienda Sanitaria di Firenze · ITAzienda USL di Bologna · ITIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITKing's College London · GBOspedale degli Infermi · ITOspedale di Sanremo · IT

Funding

Medical Research Council G0802654
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere 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.

methodsPhase 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).

resultsPhase 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.

conclusionsBoth 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.

Indexed as

LanguageOutcome Assessment, Health CareReproducibility of ResultsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBehavior Rating ScaleFemaleHumansItalyMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPalliative CareQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID26920738
PMCPMC4768331
OpenAlexW2287089984

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.