Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30141020›Full record

SynthesisThe patient2019

Tools Measuring Quality of Death, Dying, and Care, Completed after Death: Systematic Review of Psychometric Properties.

Nuriye Kupeli, Bridget Candy, Gabrielle Tamura-Rose, Guy Schofield, Natalie Webber, Stephanie E Hicks, Theodore Floyd, Bella Vivat, Elizabeth L Sampson, Patrick Stone and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The patient, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A systematic review of instruments measuring the quality of dying and death in Asian countries.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Japanese Version of the Quality of Dying and Death in the PICU Instrument: Development and Validation in Eight Centers in Japan.Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Nuriye KupeliDivision of Psychiatry, Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, University College London, 6th Floor, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 7NF, UK. N.Kupeli@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6511-412X
Bridget CandyDivision of Psychiatry, Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, University College London, 6th Floor, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 7NF, UK.
Gabrielle Tamura-RoseDepartment of Palliative Care, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.
Guy SchofieldCentre for Ethics in Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Natalie WebberRoyal Trinity Hospice, London, UK.
Stephanie E HicksSt Christopher's Hospice, London, UK.
Theodore FloydEmergency Department, Medway Maritime Hospital NHS Trust, Kent, UK.
Bella VivatDivision of Psychiatry, Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, University College London, 6th Floor, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 7NF, UK.
Elizabeth L SampsonDivision of Psychiatry, Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, University College London, 6th Floor, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 7NF, UK.
Patrick StoneDivision of Psychiatry, Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, University College London, 6th Floor, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 7NF, UK.
Trefor AspdenDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Marie Curie MCCC-FCH-18-UMarie Curie MCCC-FCO-11-UMarie Curie MCCC-FPO-16-UMarie Curie Cancer Care MCCC-FPO-16-UWellcome Trust 208129/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMeasuring the quality of care at the end of life and/or the quality of dying and death can be challenging. Some measurement tools seek to assess the quality of care immediately prior to death; others retrospectively assess, following death, the quality of end-of-life care. The comparative evaluation of the properties and application of the various instruments has been limited.

objectiveThis systematic review identified and critically appraised the psychometric properties and applicability of tools used after death.

methodWe conducted a systematic review according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines by systematically searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for relevant studies. We then appraised the psychometric properties and the quality of reporting of the psychometric properties of the identified tools using the COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments) checklist. The protocol of this systematic review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016047296).

resultsThe search identified 4751 studies. Of these, 33 met the inclusion criteria, reporting on the psychometric properties of 67 tools. These tools measured quality of care at the end of life (n = 35), quality of dying and death (n = 22), or both quality of care at the end of life and dying and death (n = 10). Most tools were completed by family carers (n = 57), with some also completed by healthcare professionals (HCPs) (n = 2) or just HCPs (n = 8). No single tool was found to be adequate across all the psychometric properties assessed. Two quality of care at the end of life tools-Care of the Dying Evaluation and Satisfaction with Care at the End of Life in Dementia-had strong psychometric properties in most respects. Two tools assessing quality of dying and death-the Quality of Dying and Death and the newly developed Staff Perception of End of Life Experience-had limited to moderate evidence of good psychometric properties. Two tools assessing both quality of care and quality of dying and death-the Quality Of Dying in Long-Term Care for cognitively intact populations and Good Death Inventory (Korean version)-had the best psychometric properties.

conclusionFour tools demonstrated some promise, but no single tool was consistent across all psychometric properties assessed. All tools identified would benefit from further psychometric testing.

Indexed as

ChecklistDeathPsychometricsSurveys and QuestionnairesTerminal CareEnglandHumansRetrospective StudiesWales

Identifiers

PMID30141020
PMCPMC6397142

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.