ArticleIndian journal of palliative care
Development of a Simple Patient-reported Outcome Measurement for Terminally Ill Cancer Patients Receiving Home-based Palliative Care.
Article in Indian journal of palliative care. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To develop a patient-reported outcome measurement for terminally ill cancer patients (PROMs-TCP) receiving home-based palliative care, which is valid, reliable and easy to use by patients or caregivers to indicate urgent needs for assistance from the care team. Materials and Methods: Three-step approach consisting of literature review, focus groups and questionnaire testing. 169 terminally ill cancer patients who received palliative care at Cancer hospital, tertiary-care hospital and university school of medicine in Thailand. The PROMs-TCP comprised five key questions with a total score of 10 and one supplemental question. PROMs-TCP was tested for content validity, internal consistency and inter-rater reliability, criterion validity, discriminant validity and sensitivity to change. The palliative care outcome scale (POS) was used as an indicator. Results: PROMs-TCP consists of five questions. The item-level content validity index (CVI) ranged from 0.8 to 1, and the scale-level CVI was 0.97. PROMs-TCP correlated well with POS scores, with correlations ranging from -0.7 to -0.8. Internal consistency was good (Cronbach's α = 0.85), while inter-rater agreements between patients and caregivers and between patients and nurses were moderate to good (Cohen's weighted k = 0.69-0.87). The tool could reasonably discriminate terrible days from good days for the patients. It was also responsive to change scores, with effect size scores of 0.36. Conclusion: PROMs-TCP could be used for daily health status assessment of home-based patients with terminally ill cancer, supporting the provision of palliative care in primary care settings.
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.