Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36964550›Full record

ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2023

Adaptation and multicentre validation of a patient-centred outcome scale for people severely ill with COVID (IPOS-COV).

Mevhibe B Hocaoglu, Fliss E M Murtagh, Catherine Walshe, Rachel L Chambers, Matthew Maddocks, Katherine E Sleeman, Adejoke O Oluyase, Lesley Dunleavy, Andy Bradshaw, Sabrina Bajwah and 4 more

Open access · goldFull text readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2023. 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
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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, 6 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

14 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Mevhibe B HocaogluFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, King's College London, Bessemer Road, London, SE5 9PJ, UK. Mevhibe.hocaoglu@kcl.ac.uk.
Fliss E M MurtaghWolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK.
Catherine WalsheInternational Observatory on End-of-Life Care, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Rachel L ChambersFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, King's College London, Bessemer Road, London, SE5 9PJ, UK.
Matthew MaddocksFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, King's College London, Bessemer Road, London, SE5 9PJ, UK.
Katherine E SleemanFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, King's College London, Bessemer Road, London, SE5 9PJ, UK.
Adejoke O OluyaseFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, King's College London, Bessemer Road, London, SE5 9PJ, UK.
Lesley DunleavyInternational Observatory on End-of-Life Care, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Andy BradshawWolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK.
Sabrina BajwahFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, King's College London, Bessemer Road, London, SE5 9PJ, UK.
Lorna K FraserHealth Sciences, University of York, York, North Yorkshire, UK.
Nancy PrestonInternational Observatory on End-of-Life Care, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Irene J HigginsonFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, King's College London, Bessemer Road, London, SE5 9PJ, UK.
CovPall study team
King's College London · GBUniversity of Hull · GBLancaster University · GBUniversity of York · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/V012908/1MRF_ MRF-145-0019-DG-HIGG-C0951
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient-centred measures to capture symptoms and concerns have rarely been reported in severe COVID. We adapted and tested the measurement properties of the proxy version of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale-IPOS-COV for severe COVID using psychometric approach.

methodsWe consulted experts and followed consensus-based standards for the selection of health status measurement instruments and United States Food and Drug Administration guidance for adaptation and analysis. Exploratory Factor Analysis and clinical perspective informed subscales. We tested the internal consistency reliability, calculated item total correlations, examined re-test reliability in stable patients, and also evaluated inter-rater reproducibility. We examined convergent and divergent validity of IPOS-COV with the Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Scale and evaluated known-groups validity. Ability to detect change was examined.

resultsIn the adaptation phase, 6 new items were added, 7 items were removed from the original measure. The recall period was revised to be the last 12-24 h to capture fast deterioration in COVID. General format and response options of the original Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale were preserved. Data from 572 patients with COVID from across England and Wales seen by palliative care services were included. Four subscales were supported by the 4-factor solution explaining 53.5% of total variance. Breathlessness-Agitation and Gastro-intestinal subscales demonstrated good reliability with high to moderate (a = 0.70 and a = 0.67) internal consistency, and item-total correlations (0.62-0.21). All except the Flu subscale discriminated well between patients with differing disease severity. Inter-rater reliability was fair with ICC of 0.40 (0.3-0.5, 95% CI, n = 324). Correlations between the subscales and AKPS as predicted were weak (r = 0.13-0.26) but significant (p < 0.01). Breathlessness-Agitation and Drowsiness-Delirium subscales demonstrated good divergent validity. Patients with low oxygen saturation had higher mean Breathlessness-Agitation scores (M = 5.3) than those with normal levels (M = 3.4), t = 6.4 (186), p < 0.001. Change in Drowsiness-Delirium subscale correctly classified patients who died.

conclusionsIPOS-COV is the first patient-centred measure adapted for severe COVID to support timely management. Future studies could further evaluate its responsiveness and clinical utility with clinimetric approaches.

Indexed as

COVID-19DeliriumHumansPalliative CarePsychometricsQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesConcernsIntegrated Palliative care Outcome ScaleLife-limiting illnessesPalliative and end of life carePatient-centred outcomesSevere COVIDSymptomsSymptom severity

Identifiers

PMID36964550
PMCPMC10036974
OpenAlexW4360864638

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read7
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.