Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33648447›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2021

Reliability and validity of the Patient Benefit Assessment Scale for Hospitalised Older Patients (P-BAS HOP).

Maria Johanna van der Kluit, Geke J Dijkstra, Sophia E de Rooij

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Maria Johanna van der KluitUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, University Center for Geriatric Medicine, Hanzeplein 1, 9700, RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. m.j.van.der.kluit@umcg.nl.
Geke J DijkstraUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Health Sciences, Applied Health Research, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Sophia E de RooijUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, University Center for Geriatric Medicine, Hanzeplein 1, 9700, RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Medisch Spectrum Twente · NLStenden University of Applied Sciences · NLUniversity of Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Patient Benefit Assessment Scale for Hospitalised Older Patients (P-BAS HOP) is a tool which is capable of both identifying the priorities of the individual patient and measuring the outcomes relevant to him/her, resulting in a Patient Benefit Index (PBI) with range 0-3, indicating how much benefit the patient had experienced from the admission. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability, validity, responsiveness and interpretability of the P-BAS HOP.

methodsA longitudinal study among hospitalised older patients with a baseline interview during hospitalisation and a follow-up by telephone 3 months after discharge. Test-retest reliability of the baseline and follow-up questionnaire were tested. Percentage of agreement, Cohen's kappa with quadratic weighting and maximum attainable kappa were calculated per item. The PBI was calculated for both test and retest of baseline and follow-up and compared with Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Construct validity was tested by evaluating pre-defined hypotheses comparing the priority of goals with experienced symptoms or limitations at admission and the achievement of goals with progression or deterioration of other constructs. Responsiveness was evaluated by correlating the PBI with the anchor question 'How much did you benefit from the admission?'. This question was also used to evaluate the interpretability of the PBI with the visual anchor-based minimal important change distribution method.

resultsReliability was tested with 53 participants at baseline and 72 at follow-up. Mean weighted kappa of the baseline items was 0.38. ICC between PBI of the test and retest was 0.77. Mean weighted kappa of the follow-up items was 0.51. ICC between PBI of the test and retest was 0.62. For the construct validity, tested in 451 participants, all baseline hypotheses were confirmed. From the follow-up hypotheses, tested in 344 participants, five of seven were confirmed. The Spearman's correlation coefficient between the PBI and the anchor question was 0.51. The optimal cut-off point was 0.7 for 'no important benefit' and 1.4 points for 'important benefit' on the PBI.

conclusionsAlthough the concept seems promising, the reliability and validity of the P-BAS HOP appeared to be not yet satisfactory. We therefore recommend adapting the P-BAS HOP.

Indexed as

Patient Outcome AssessmentFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleNeeds AssessmentReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesGoal settingHospitalisationMinimal important change (MIC)Older adultsPatient perspectivePatient-reported outcomesReliabilityResponsivenessValidityValue-based health care

Identifiers

PMID33648447
PMCPMC7923656
OpenAlexW3135465762

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.