Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35879006›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Protocol for the development and multisite validation of the Quality of Dying and Death-Revised Global Version scale.

Ekaterina An, Alyssa Tilly, Kenneth Mah, Warren Lewin, Mano Chandrakumar, Arnell Baguio, Nazira Jaffer, Maria Chikasema, Lameck Thambo, Christian Ntizimira and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

16 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Ekaterina AnDepartment of Supportive Care, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Alyssa TillyDivision of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Kenneth MahDepartment of Supportive Care, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada kenneth.mah@uhnresearch.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-8920-5253
Warren LewinKensington Hospice, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Mano ChandrakumarKensington Hospice, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Arnell BaguioPalliative Care Program, Stronach Regional Cancer Centre, Southlake Regional Health Centre, Newmarket, Ontario, Canada.
Nazira JafferGlobal Institute of Psychosocial, Palliative and End-of-Life Care, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Maria ChikasemaUNC Project, Lilongwe, Central Region, Malawi.
Lameck ThamboPalliative Care Association, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Christian NtizimiraAfrican Center for Research on End of Life Care, Kigali, Rwanda.
Eve NamisangoAfrican Palliative Care Association, Kampala, Uganda.
Sarah HalesDepartment of Supportive Care, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Camilla ZimmermannDepartment of Supportive Care, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4889-0244
Kayla WolofskyDivision of Palliative Care, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Mary GoombsDepartment of Supportive Care, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Gary RodinDepartment of Supportive Care, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6626-6974
University Health Network · CAAfrican Palliative Care Association · UGChristian Health Association of Malawi · MWKensington Health · CASouthlake Regional Health Center · CAUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEvaluating the quality of dying and death is essential to ensure high-quality end-of-life care. The Quality of Dying and Death (QODD) scale is the best-validated measure of the construct, but many items are not relevant to participants, particularly in low-resource settings. The aim of this multisite cross-sectional study is to develop and validate the QODD-Revised Global Version (QODD-RGV), to enhance ease of completion and relevance in higher-resource and lower-resource settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will be a two-arm, multisite evaluation of the cultural relevance, reliability and validity of the QODD-RGV across four participating North American hospices and a palliative care site in Malawi, Africa. Bereaved caregivers and healthcare providers of patients who died at a participating North American hospice and bereaved caregivers of patients who died of cancer at the Malawian palliative care site will complete the QODD-RGV and validation measures. Cognitive interviews with subsets of North American and Malawian caregivers will assess the perceived relevance of the scale items. Psychometric evaluations will include internal consistency and convergent and concurrent validity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The North American arm received approval from the University Health Network Research Ethics Board (21-5143) and the University of North Carolina Institutional Review Board (21-1172). Ethics approval for the Malawi arm is being obtained from the University of North Carolina Institutional Review Board and the Malawian National Health Science Research Committee. Study findings will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.

Indexed as

Hospice CareCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMalawiPalliative CareReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesAdult oncologyAdult palliative careQuality in health care

Identifiers

PMID35879006
PMCPMC9328109
OpenAlexW4287448714

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.