ArticleESC heart failure2024
Validity and reliability of the palliative care needs assessment tool in Japanese patients with heart failure.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Validity and reliability of the palliative care needs assessment tool in Japanese patients with heart failure.ESC heart failure · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsAlthough patients with heart failure (HF) frequently experience considerable symptom burden and require significant care, most HF patients do not receive timely intervention due to the absence of a standardized method for identifying those in need of palliative care. The Needs Assessment Tool: Progressive Disease-Heart Failure (NAT: PD-HF) assesses the palliative care needs of patients with HF. However, its validity and reliability have yet to be fully examined. We aimed to assess the validity and reliability of the NAT: PD-HF in Japanese patients with HF.
methodsWe prospectively enrolled 106 consecutive patients with chronic HF admitted to our university hospital between February 2023 and July 2023. Their caregivers (n = 95) and healthcare providers (n = 17) were also included. The NAT: PD-HF was translated from English to Japanese using a forward-backward translation procedure and adapted based on Japanese cultural and medical backgrounds by our professional multidisciplinary team. We assessed the internal consistency of the Japanese NAT: PD-HF version with Cronbach's alpha coefficient and the inter-rater and test-retest reliabilities with Cohen's kappa coefficient. After using the tool, all participants were asked to complete a questionnaire about the tool to determine its validity.
resultsThe proportion of female patients in this study was 47 (44%). The median age was 72 years [interquartile range (IQR) 59-81]. The median time spent assessing the patients' and their caregivers' needs using the Japanese NAT: PD-HF was 14 min (IQR 12-17). The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.82, and the minimum kappa coefficient was 0.77 for inter-rater reliability and 0.88 for test-retest reliability. In total, 103 patients (97%) and all caregivers responded that the tool was easy to understand. One hundred (94%) patients and 89 (94%) caregivers felt that the tool would improve the quality of care, and 102 (96%) patients and 91 (96%) caregivers indicated that the discussions using this tool allowed them to confide in all their burdens and care needs. All healthcare providers expressed that this tool is helpful in understanding the burden and care needs of both patients and caregivers comprehensively.
conclusionsThe NAT: PD-HF is a reliable and valid tool for Japanese patients with HF and their caregivers. This tool was very well accepted by patients, caregivers and healthcare providers to identify burdens and care needs.
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.