Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29454343›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2018

Systematic development and adjustment of the German version of the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT-DE).

Kambiz Afshar, Angelika Feichtner, Kirsty Boyd, Scott Murray, Saskia Jünger, Birgitt Wiese, Nils Schneider, Gabriele Müller-Mundt

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Kambiz AfsharInstitute for General Practice, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. Afshar.Kambiz@mh-hannover.de.
Angelika FeichtnerParacelsus Medical University Salzburg, Strubergasse 21, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
Kirsty BoydUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, Old Medical School, The University of Edinburgh, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK.
Scott MurrayUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, Old Medical School, The University of Edinburgh, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK.
Saskia JüngerInstitute for General Practice, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Birgitt WieseInstitute for General Practice, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Nils SchneiderInstitute for General Practice, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Gabriele Müller-MundtInstitute for General Practice, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.

Funding

Internal research fund of the Hannover Medical School (Hochschul-interne Leistungsförderung, HiLF) 79273002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators tool (SPICT) supports the identification of patients with potential palliative care (PC) needs. An Austrian-German expert group translated SPICT into German (SPICT-DE) in 2014. The aim of this study was the systematic development, refinement, and testing of SPICT-DE for its application in primary care (general practice).

methodsSPICT-DE was developed by a multiprofessional research team according to the TRAPD model: translation, review, adjudication, pretesting and documentation. In a pretest, five general practitioners (GPs) rated four case vignettes of patients with different PC needs. GPs were asked to assess whether each patient might benefit from PC or not (I) based on their subjective appraisal ("usual practice") and (II) by using SPICT-DE. After further refinement, two focus groups with 28 GPs (68% with a further qualification in PC) were conducted to test SPICT-DE. Again, participants rated two selected case vignettes (I) based on their subjective appraisal and (II) by using SPICT-DE. Afterwards, participants reflected the suitability of SPICT-DE for use in their daily practice routine within the German primary care system. Quantitative data were analysed with descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests for small samples. Qualitative data were analysed by conventional content analysis. Focus group discussion was analysed combining formal and conventional content analysis.

resultsCompared to the spontaneous rating of the case vignettes based on subjective appraisal, participants in both the pretest and the focus groups considered PC more often as being beneficial for the patients described in the case vignettes when using SPICT-DE. Participants in the focus groups agreed that SPICT-DE includes all relevant indicators necessary for an adequate clinical identification of patients who might benefit from PC.

conclusionsSPICT-DE supports the identification of patients who might benefit from PC and seems suitable for routine application in general practice in Germany. The systematic development, refinement, and testing of SPICT-DE in this study was successfully completed by using a multiprofessional and participatory approach.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesAgedAged, 80 and overAustriaFemaleFocus GroupsGermanyHumansMalePalliative CarePsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsGeneral practiceIdentification toolPalliative carePrimary careSPICT

Identifiers

PMID29454343
PMCPMC5816386

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.