Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39314871›Full record

ArticlePalliative care and social practice2024

Progressing the Death Literacy Index: the development of a revised version (DLI-R) and a short format (DLI-9).

Kerrie Noonan, Andrea Grindrod, Sumina Shrestha, Sora Lee, Rosemary Leonard, Therese Johansson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Palliative care and social practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 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. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

6 authors.

Kerrie NoonanPublic Health Palliative Care Unit, La Trobe University, Bundoora Campus, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5349-5041
Andrea GrindrodPublic Health Palliative Care Unit, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Sumina ShresthaPublic Health Palliative Care Unit, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Sora LeePublic Health Palliative Care Unit, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2665-7794
Rosemary LeonardSchool of Social Sciences, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia.
Therese JohanssonDepartment of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Since the development of the Death Literacy Index (DLI) in 2019 in Australia, subsequent internationally validated versions have prompted rewording and refinement of the original survey questions. Use of the DLI in the community has also resulted in requests for a short format. Objectives: To examine and report on the psychometric properties of a revised version of the DLI-R and develop a short format DLI-9. Design: A cross-sectional national survey was conducted for the validation of the revised DLI. Methods: The DLI items were revised by the research team using the international literature. DLI data were collected from a representative online non-probability panel of 1202 Australian adults, based on age, gender, and geographical location. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to ensure the revised version (DLI-R) was consistent with the original. To develop a short format version of the DLI (DLI-9), items were first removed based on face validity, followed by an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and CFA. The internal reliability of the DLI-R and the DLI-9 was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. The intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated to examine the inter-rater reliability between the DLI-R and DLI-9. Results: Twenty-four questions in the DLI were reworded for clarity. A CFA on the 29 items of this modified version of the DLI indicated a good model fit (Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): 0.93; Comparative Fit Index (CFI): 0.93; root mean square of approximation (RMSEA): 0.06; standardized root mean residual (SRMR): 0.06), with six latent variables and an underlying latent variable "death literacy." For the DLI-9, an EFA identified a nine-item, two-factor structure model (DLI-9). A subsequent CFA in a separate sample demonstrated a good model fit for the DLI-9 (TLI: 0.92; CFI: 0.94; RMSEA: 0.089; SRMR: 0.07). Excellent inter-rater reliability (0.98) was observed between DLI-9 and DLI-R. Cronbach's alpha coefficients for DLI-R scales and subscales and the DLI-9 all exceeded 0.8, indicating high internal consistency. Conclusion: The DLI-R and the DLI-9 were found to have acceptable psychometric properties. The development of a shorter version of the DLI provides a valid measure of overall death literacy.

Indexed as

compassionate communitiesdeath literacyDeath Literacy Indexpopulation studiespublic health palliative care

Identifiers

PMID39314871
PMCPMC11418362

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.