ArticleBMJ open2023
Revision of the Advanced Cancer Patients' Distress Scale (ACPDS): a mixed-methods study among palliative patients and healthcare professionals in Germany.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo revise the 37-item Advanced Cancer Patients' Distress Scale (ACPDS) regarding its content, comprehensibility, applicability, and relevance by healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients in order to enhance an existing instrument that is appropriate for the needs of patients with advanced cancer admitted to palliative care.
designA preliminary revision of items regarding psychometric indices and relevance to initially shorten the scale, complemented by cognitive interviews with patients combining think-aloud and verbal-probe techniques and an HCP focus group on the detected remaining items. Interviews and the focus group were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using MAXQDA.
settingThe study took place at a German palliative care unit.
participants10 patients were interviewed (50% female) and 6 HCPs (3 physicians, 2 nurses and 1 psychologist) participated in the focus group. OUTCOME MEASURES: Comprehensibility, applicability, and relevance of the ACPDS were evaluated.
resultsBased on the psychometric revision, a reduced number of 17 items was discussed by the HCP focus group and within cognitive interviews with patients. For the rest of the analysis of the HCP focus group and the patient interview data, the introduction of the ACPDS was simplified and adapted to everyday language. As recommended by HCPs and patients, the example question was replaced. Nine items were reworded to boost clarity, openness, redundancy and mitigation. Three items were eliminated, and another three items were added.
conclusionWith this revised 17-item version of the ACPDS, we constructed an instrument that seems to be appropriate for the needs of patients with advanced cancer in a palliative care setting. In the next step, the shortened scale will be tested on psychometric data and validated by a large sample of inpatients on palliative care suffering from advanced cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS ID: DRKS00022425.
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.