ArticleBMJ open2022
Protocol for the development and multisite validation of the Quality of Dying and Death-Revised Global Version scale.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Psychometric Validation of the Palliative Care Experience Scale (PCES): An Experience-Oriented Assessment Instrument.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Article
- Content validity of the quality of dying and death questionnaire- revised global-version in North American inpatient hospices.PloS one · 2026Article
- Exploring quality of death in Chinese hospice and palliative care units: a qualitative perspective from practitioners in healthcare settings.BMC palliative care · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.