ArticleBMC palliative care2021
Validity and reliability of the English and translated Chinese versions of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) in Singapore.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Proactive symptom monitoring to initiate timely palliative care for patients with advanced cancer: a randomized controlled trial.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Trial
- Patient-Reported Palliative Care Outcomes in Kazakhstan: A Cross-Regional Study Using the POS Questionnaire.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Beyond Cancer: Differences in Psychosocial Burden Between Patients with Chronic Non-Cancer Diagnoses Assessed Using the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluating the measurement properties of the Hindi Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS) in advanced cancer patients receiving home-based palliative care in India.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- A validation study of the modified Chinese version of the integrated palliative care outcome scale (IPOS) among patients with advanced illness in Hong Kong.BMC palliative care · 2025Article
- Psychometric properties of palliative care outcome measures: a multi-centre study.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Article
- Comparing EQ-5D-5L and IPOS among residents with malignant tumors in a community home hospice: a longitudinal study.BMC palliative care · 2025Article
- Use of mobile app "SUPPORT+" to enhance community palliative care in patients with advanced cancer: A prospective study.Palliative care and social practice · 2025Article
- Validity and reliability of the integrated palliative care outcome scale (IPOS) in Korea: a multicenter study of terminally ill cancer patients.BMC palliative care · 2024Article
- Enhancing palliative care for advanced cancer patients: evaluating implementation and impact of a virtual nurse-led symptom monitoring and telehealth initiative.BMC palliative care · 2024Article
- ENABLE-SG (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends for Singapore) as a proactive palliative care model: protocol for a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation randomized wait-list controlled trial.BMC palliative care · 2024Article
- Facilitators and barriers to implementation of a patient and staff reported measure for screening of palliative concerns of patients with heart failure: a qualitative analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.Palliative care and social practice · 2023Article
- Comprehensive symptom assessment using Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale in hospitalized heart failure patients.ESC heart failure · 2022Article
- Intra-rater reliability and feasibility of the HexCom advanced disease complexity assessment model.Atencion primaria · 2022Article
- Translation and cultural adaptation of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale for Dementia (IPOS-Dem) to Swedish.BMC nursing · 2022Article
- Validity and Reliability of the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale in Asian Heart Failure Patients.Palliative medicine reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextMeasurement of patient-centred outcomes enables clinicians to focus on patient and family priorities and enables quality of palliative care to be assessed.
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the English and translated Chinese versions of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) among advanced cancer patients in Singapore.
methodsIPOS was forward and backward translated from English into Chinese. Structural validity was assessed by confirmatory factor analysis; known-group validity by comparing inpatients and community patients; construct validity by correlating IPOS with Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised (ESAS-r) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G); internal consistency by Cronbach's alpha; inter-rater reliability between patient and staff responses; test-retest reliability of patient responses between two timepoints.
resultsOne hundred eleven English-responding and 109 Chinese-responding patients participated. The three-factor structure (Physical Symptoms, Emotional Symptoms and Communication and Practical Issues) was confirmed with Comparative Fit Index and Tucker-Lewis-Index > 0.9 and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation < 0.08. Inpatients scored higher than outpatients as hypothesised. Construct validity (Pearson's correlation coefficient, r ≥ |0.608|) was shown between the related subscales of IPOS and FACT-G and ESAS-r. Internal consistency was confirmed for total and subscale scores (Cronbach's alpha≥0.84), except for the Communication and Practical Issues subscale (Cronbach's alpha = 0.29-0.65). Inter-rater reliability (Intra-class correlation coefficient [ICC] ≤ 0.43) between patient and staff responses was insufficient. Test-retest reliability was confirmed with Intra-class correlation coefficient ICC = 0.80 (English) and 0.88 (Chinese) for IPOS Total.
conclusionIPOS in English and Chinese showed good validity, good internal consistency, and good test-retest reliability, except for the Communication and Practical Issues subscale. There was poor inter-rater reliability between patients and staff.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.