Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35962383›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2022

Psychometric validation of the death literacy index and benchmarking of death literacy level in a representative uk population sample.

Lisa Graham-Wisener, Paul Toner, Rosemary Leonard, Jenny M Groarke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Death literacy: Tensions between theory and practice.Palliative care and social practice · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Lisa Graham-WisenerCentre for Improving Health-Related Quality of Life, School of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, BT7 1NN, UK. l.graham-wisener@qub.ac.uk.
Paul TonerCentre for Improving Health-Related Quality of Life, School of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, BT7 1NN, UK.
Rosemary LeonardSchool of Social Sciences and Psychology, Penrith Kingswood Campus, Western Sydney University Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW, 2751, Australia.
Jenny M GroarkeCentre for Improving Health-Related Quality of Life, School of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, BT7 1NN, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDeath literacy includes the knowledge and skills that people need to gain access to, understand, and make informed choices about end of life and death care options. The Death Literacy Index (DLI) can be used to determine levels of death literacy across multiple contexts, including at a community/national level, and to evaluate the outcome of public health interventions. As the first measure of death literacy, the DLI has potential to significantly advance public health approaches to palliative care. The current study aimed to provide the first assessment of the psychometric properties of the DLI in the UK, alongside population-level benchmarks.

methodsA large nationally representative sample of 399 participants, stratified by age, gender and ethnicity, were prospectively recruited via an online panel. The factor structure of the 29-item DLI was investigated using confirmatory factor analysis. Internal consistency of subscales was assessed alongside interpretability. Hypothesised associations with theoretically related/unrelated constructs were examined to assess convergent and discriminant validity. Descriptive statistics were used to provide scaled mean scores on the DLI.

resultsConfirmatory factor analysis supported the original higher-order 8 factor structure, with the best fitting model including one substituted item developed specifically for UK respondents. The subscales reported high internal consistency. Good convergent and discriminant validity was evidenced in relation to objective knowledge of the death system, death competency, actions relating to death and dying in the community and loneliness. Good known-groups validity was achieved with respondents with professional/lived experience of end-of-life care reporting higher levels of death literacy. There was little socio-demographic variability in DLI scores. Scaled population-level mean scores were near the mid-point of DLI subscale/total, with comparatively high levels of experiential knowledge and the ability to talk about death and dying.

conclusionsPsychometric evaluations suggest the DLI is a reliable and valid measure of death literacy for use in the UK, with population level benchmarks suggesting the UK population could strengthen capacity in factual knowledge and accessing help. International validation of the DLI represents a significant advancement in outcome measurement for public health approaches to palliative care. PRE-REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/fwxkh/.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyBenchmarkingHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomCarersCommunity developmentDeath educationDeath literacyDeath literacy indexEnd of life carePalliative carePublic healthUKValidation

Identifiers

PMID35962383
PMCPMC9374575

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.