Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38566178›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2024

Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of point-of-care outcome assessment tools in Chinese palliative care clinical practice.

Yunyun Dai, Claire E Johnson, Jinfeng Ding, Yongyi Chen, Alanna Connolly, Lianjun Wang, Barbara A Daveson

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Yunyun DaiFaculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, 239 Squires Way, Wollongong, 2522, New South Wales, Australia. yd808@uowmail.edu.au.
Claire E JohnsonPalliative Aged Care Outcomes Program, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9190-8441
Jinfeng DingXiangya School of Nursing, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Yongyi ChenHunan Cancer Hospital, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Alanna ConnollyPalliative Aged Care Outcomes Program, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
Lianjun WangSchool of Nursing, Guilin Medical University, Guilin, Guangxi, China.
Barbara A DavesonPalliative Care Outcomes Collaboration, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

Guilin Science and Technology Bureau 20220139-6-4Hunan Provincial Natural Science Foundation Youth Program 2023JJ40791
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA standardized national approach to routinely assessing palliative care patients helps improve patient outcomes. However, a quality improvement program-based on person centered outcomes within palliative care is lacking in Mainland China. The well-established Australian Palliative Care Outcome Collaboration (PCOC) national model improves palliative care quality. This study aimed to culturally adapt and validate three measures that form part of the PCOC program for palliative care clinical practice in China: The PCOC Symptom Assessment Scale (PCOC SAS), Palliative Care Problem Severity Scale (PCPSS), Palliative Care Phase.

methodsA study was conducted on cross-cultural adaptation and validation of PCOC SAS, PCPSS and Palliative Care Phase, involving translation methods, cognitive interviewing, and psychometric testing through paired assessments.

resultsCross-cultural adaptation highlighted the need to strengthen the link between the patient's care plan and the outcome measures to improve outcomes, and the concept of distress in PCOC SAS. Analysis of 368 paired assessments (n = 135 inpatients, 22 clinicians) demonstrated that the PCOC SAS and PCPSS had good and acceptable coherence (Cronbach's a = 0.85, 0.75 respectively). Palliative Care Phase detected patients' urgent needs. PCOC SAS and PCPSS showed fair discriminant and concurrent validity. Inter-rater reliability was fair for Palliative Care Phase (k = 0.31) and PCPSS (k = 0.23-0.30), except for PCPSS-pain, which was moderate (k = 0.53).

conclusionsThe Chinese version of PCOC SAS, PCPSS, and Palliative Care Phase can be used to assess outcomes as part of routine clinical practice in Mainland China. Comprehensive clinical education regarding the assessment tools is necessary to help improve the inter-rater reliability.

Indexed as

Cross-Cultural ComparisonPalliative CareAustraliaHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePoint-of-Care SystemsPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesPalliative carePalliative care phasePalliative care problem severity scorePoint of care outcomes assessmentReliabilitySymptom assessment scaleValidity

Identifiers

PMID38566178
PMCPMC10988912

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.